|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 22, 2009 16:40:58 GMT -6
1) Okay...on what of my arguments would you like a fact for which to back it up? 2) Am I lacking in a fact? I can find one, if you need it, but looking at this thread, I can't tell what argument you require a fact to substantiate my opinion. 3) What it sounds like to me, is that you need a fact to say "The Indians were wrong, and the Americans were right." And, of course, there are no facts to bear upon such a question...it is all a matter of values, and not of facts at all. 4) So is there ANY argument on this thread where facts are even relevant? Why not, instead, talk about VALUES? Or, if you find discussing values too boring, would you like to argue about a fact? What fact? 5) Going back to the beginning of this thread, it is about the right or wrong of Indians mutilating their dead enemies. What "facts," Hunk or clw, are relevant to the argument as to whether that is right or wrong?! Clair
Clair, I would like to say that your above post is a masterpiece of serpentine guile, simian craftiness and Machiavellian cunning. I would like to say that, but I can't, because it is yet another fatuous load of bunkum incorporating the anticipated quantum leap sideways. My responses are hereunder appended, seriatim: 1) Arrogance again, asking me to do your work for you. Look back over almost any post you have made and you should, but won't, see that they are lacking in fact. The point is not to concern yourself with past posts as thay are not worth recall, but to endeavour IN FUTURE to include PROVABLE FACTS by citing the sources of the information, NOT opinions, that you hopefully will provide. 2) Yes, you are lacking in fact as you only spout opinions. If your opinions have some foundation, quote it, not only on this thread but on all the others that have been assailed by your version of events. 3) Not at all. If historical facts were that simple the subject would be mind numbingly dull. What makes the subject interesting is a study of and discussion about the merits of the written data available, not the pros and cons (no pun intended) of uninformed personal opinions. Values do not enter into that equation. 4) ALL arguments on ALL threads demand the dissemination of facts. Without them there is no basis for any debate and we are left with the asinine sort of playground shouting match that schoolboys indulge in. Throwing in VALUES is if it had some relevance is simply your well know method of dodging the issue at hand, namely your consistent failure to advance an argument based on something tangible. 5) The diversion from the original thread is down to you. Your response #40 of April 30 to be precise. But to answer the question you have raised, there is no right or wrong involved. The NDN tribes that practised such mutilation were merely following the customs and religious beliefs inherent within their way of life. In effect, they knew no better, but white soldiers, volunteers or civilians who indulged in similar mutilations were reputedly God fearing, Christian, church going, civilized people who SHOULD have known better. For the Indians, there was no right or wrong because that is what they did and expected in return from their traditional Indian enemies. They treated whites the same because they had no idea they were dealing with a totally different culture. For the whites, there WAS right and wrong, because they knew what was right but CHOSE to do wrong. When you can get your brain past your prejudices, you should try and understand that native cultures cannot be judged by so called civilized capitalist societies simply because they marched to the beat of a different drum. They thought differently and they fought differently, that doesn't make them wrong, just different. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 22, 2009 20:20:04 GMT -6
2) Yes, you are lacking in fact as you only spout opinions. If your opinions have some foundation, quote it, not only on this thread but on all the others that have been assailed by your version of events. Hunk, it is my opinion that the mutilation of bodies is wrong. That was the topic of this thread. What facts are you talking about? What "facts" can possibly convince you of my opinion that mutilating bodies is wrong?! It is not about facts...it is about values. Is not your value that mutilating bodies is wrong, then? Is there some opinion of mine here that is not a value, and requires a fact to back it up? I am at a loss to understand what you are remonstrating about. Again, pick a statement that I made that requires more factual backup, and I'll be glad to attempt to provide it. But on my values...my facts are my mother, my father, my environment, and my God. You want me to prove that?! Of course they were, as were the Soldiers that they fought. So was that right, or wrong? So isn't it the Christian duty of Americans to teach the Indians better? I agree, we DO know better... Well, I think that they did have a strong concept of right and wrong, based on their own tribal cultures and religions. In the case of mutilation, I agree with you. I also agree that we knew better, and were obligated to teach this to the primitives. Yes, and should always be punished for doing wrong. I have no problem with this...what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. We just sent a Soldier to prison for life without parole (should have executed him) due to his raping and murdering an Iraq girl and her family. I don't see how this follows. If we know better that it is wrong, than we of course must judge their primitive and anti-social behaviors to be necessary of change. Now if we don't have to pay the price to execute that decision, we won't do it...we'll let them go their errant ways. We do this for much of the globe right now...allow all kinds of immoralities and savage practices exist in Africa, Asia, and South America that somebody should stop. But we aren't willing to pay that price...we'll work on it a little bit at a time, and using as little force as possible, because we in America can afford to. But eventually, it is our intention to civilize the entire world, and make it a place of peace. But we didn't have that luxury in America. We were here, and growing fast. The Native Americans resented us being here, of course, and our societies could not cohabitate, because of all those cultural differences you talk about. There could only be ONE civilization...and we judged that ours was better, so we went about enforcing our civilization on everybody. Because we knew better, just as you say. To leave the Native American societies in the savage and violent state that we found them in would be immoral. Now HOW we sometimes made this happen was immoral in technique and outcome...but not the requirement to make it happen in the first place. That's my opinion and value system, and I need no "facts" for it. But I do believe it was shared by a majority of Americans during the Indian Wars, and continues today, although most Americans don't have to face this here in our now peaceable land. Clair
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 24, 2009 17:49:33 GMT -6
2) Yes, you are lacking in fact as you only spout opinions. If your opinions have some foundation, quote it, not only on this thread but on all the others that have been assailed by your version of events. Hunk, it is my opinion that the mutilation of bodies is wrong. That was the topic of this thread. What facts are you talking about? What "facts" can possibly convince you of my opinion that mutilating bodies is wrong?! It is not about facts...it is about values. Is not your value that mutilating bodies is wrong, then? Is there some opinion of mine here that is not a value, and requires a fact to back it up? I am at a loss to understand what you are remonstrating about. Again, pick a statement that I made that requires more factual backup, and I'll be glad to attempt to provide it. But on my values...my facts are my mother, my father, my environment, and my God. You want me to prove that?! Of course they were, as were the Soldiers that they fought. So was that right, or wrong? So isn't it the Christian duty of Americans to teach the Indians better? I agree, we DO know better... Well, I think that they did have a strong concept of right and wrong, based on their own tribal cultures and religions. In the case of mutilation, I agree with you. I also agree that we knew better, and were obligated to teach this to the primitives. Yes, and should always be punished for doing wrong. I have no problem with this...what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. We just sent a Soldier to prison for life without parole (should have executed him) due to his raping and murdering an Iraq girl and her family. I don't see how this follows. If we know better that it is wrong, than we of course must judge their primitive and anti-social behaviors to be necessary of change. Now if we don't have to pay the price to execute that decision, we won't do it...we'll let them go their errant ways. We do this for much of the globe right now...allow all kinds of immoralities and savage practices exist in Africa, Asia, and South America that somebody should stop. But we aren't willing to pay that price...we'll work on it a little bit at a time, and using as little force as possible, because we in America can afford to. But eventually, it is our intention to civilize the entire world, and make it a place of peace. But we didn't have that luxury in America. We were here, and growing fast. The Native Americans resented us being here, of course, and our societies could not cohabitate, because of all those cultural differences you talk about. There could only be ONE civilization...and we judged that ours was better, so we went about enforcing our civilization on everybody. Because we knew better, just as you say. To leave the Native American societies in the savage and violent state that we found them in would be immoral. Now HOW we sometimes made this happen was immoral in technique and outcome...but not the requirement to make it happen in the first place. That's my opinion and value system, and I need no "facts" for it. But I do believe it was shared by a majority of Americans during the Indian Wars, and continues today, although most Americans don't have to face this here in our now peaceable land. Clair Jeez, rarely do I get a chance to tell two people who are arguing from different viewpoints that they both are blowing smoke, but, in this case, I do. Conz, whether we as Anglos liked it or not, the mutilation of bodies by the Plains Indians was normal for their culture. Your statement, "It is not about facts...it is about values. Is not your value that mutilating bodies is wrong, then..." totally ignores the NA values and supersedes them with the Anglo perspective. Hunk, in your statement from the Cavalry Training thread, you state: "The army was the aggressor, that is my point and not just an aggressor but one who killed indiscriminately. It is about time you climbed down from your racially arrogant high horse, studied historical events more profoundly and realised that your attitude to the Native Americans is identical to that of the Army in 1876. It got Custer and over 200 of his men killed." Knowing that you likely said that in the exuberance of getting Conz chasing his tail, I will refrain from saying that is unmitigated bullshit. If you wish, we can continue that conversation, like gentlemen, in private. Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 24, 2009 21:02:07 GMT -6
Yeah. Christianity is the go-to religion for the ethics in such matters.
Even the Life Magazine of Luce had a Japanese skull on the cover, hacked off by a Marine and sent to his wife, so what does that tell you about Christian America in 1943? They also had a photo of a Japanese head, with skin and helmet and all, mounted on a tank. Apparently everyone mutilates enemy dead and keeps body parts as good luck totems or out of sense of sadism or vengeance. Since battle is something none of us - conz, hunk, markland, or myself - have ever experienced, I'm pretty sure, voicing definitive estimations of the morality involved is pretty silly. It happens in every war, by all sides. It's a totally understandable reaction when scared, I'd think, but it isn't something that can be officially tolerated, because these guys eventually come back to home in our nation.
We civvies, precious beings and so innocent, continue to pretend that we 'understand' the horrors of war, and we couldn't have a clue. I think the greatest mulitation performed on our combat vet soldiers is the ludicrous ethical dichotomies we burden them with, and we do next to nothing to help them deal with what they saw, did, and tolerated in themselves and others. Six months hard labor to become a killing maching. Push-pull, click-click, now you're a civvie so don't do, think, or act like that anymore. Startiiiiiiiiiiiiing, now.
We - meaning us humans - have done it in every war. The photos referenced are easy to find, and are probably on the WEB. It wasn't a few bad eggs doing it. It was not uncommon. General orders periodically had to be given not to deface the dead. Marines pried open Japanese mouths and took out gold teeth with their knife. Those mouths were sometimes still attached to heart beats.
Some American parachute units took no - as in none - prisoners while in Europe. Somehow, Germans all were just dead, even those seen to surrender. Our subs surfaced and machine gunned Japanese survivors after their ships sank, Mush Morton in the Wahoo most famously, just like we complained about that issue with the Nazis and Japanese. The British shot some of those sinking their own ships at Scapa Flow, and despite the legal reasons allowing it, that was an unnecessary sadism. The Germans had no weapons and were ridiculously outnumbered.
Under heavy artillery, on land and sea, men got blown apart with body parts everywhere, and this undoubtedly played a role in the numbing of senses if you see hands, feet, heads, torso sections everywhere all the time. It's not a distant step to take beyond the dead.
It has zippo to do with cultures: men become animals in combat, especially those there for a while. Indians were not the aggresors, tactically, at LBH, but they did what everyone else does. I don't know how you can read the memoirs of combat soldiers and much history and not see this all the time, by everyone.
Yes, it's Memorial Day, but I think it terribly cruel because we civvies want no responsibility, that we aren't sharing some of the blame and not make these guys think they're monsters for the rest of their lives because they lost it once. Discounting those who were monsters before, and just joined for combat because opportunity beckened. There'd be less of it if everyone came clean. That'll happen.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 24, 2009 22:13:25 GMT -6
And don't forget the phony submarine concerns by the British as helpless Bismarck survivors floated in the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 25, 2009 17:51:52 GMT -6
Knowing that you likely said that in the exuberance of getting Conz chasing his tail, I will refrain from saying that is unmitigated bullshit. Billy
Perzackly!!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 26, 2009 9:04:19 GMT -6
<There could only be ONE civilization...and we judged that ours was better, so we went about enforcing our civilization on everybody>
Sorta sounds like the following quote:
“. . . Our goal is a Christian Nation . . . we have a Biblical duty . . . we are called by God to conquer this country . . .”
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 26, 2009 9:40:30 GMT -6
“. . . Our goal is a Christian Nation . . There is not, and will be no, official government religion, including in the Army. But the vast majority of Americans are Christian, and Soldiers grew up being trained in Christian values and principles. That's why we have so many Christian chaplains in the Army, as Army officers. On a personal level, all Christians, Jews, and Muslims do...we all follow pretty much the same basic Bible. It is not an Army policy, of course...we codify our legal strictures. But above these, individuals in the Army have their own standards for ethics/morality/values. So we have the "official" values, and the personal values. Both come into play when evaluating how Soldiers make decisions and follow and carry out orders. I don't know about that, but we are certainly called upon by our creator to make this world a better place. Otherwise, why are we here? The American Army is an important part of that effort. Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 26, 2009 9:54:07 GMT -6
<we are certainly called upon by our creator to make this world a better place. Otherwise, why are we here?>
Don't non-believers think like that?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 26, 2009 10:44:28 GMT -6
That the Germans did or did not have subs converging wasn't known at the time. But if the Nazis had NOT sent subs to see if they could sink a few stationary Brit ships around the Bismark's demise, they'd have been incompetent, so it's not an unreasonable assumption. The Brits were low on fuel. They saved over one hundred.
Be it said, few navies did different. Who picked up the Hood's 3 survivors? Not the Prince of Wales, nor the Bismark, both right there. It was understood that ships would not be risked picking up their own. One of the many (idiotic) reasons that for a long time sailors didn't learn how to swim. Why bother?
We did conquer the Indians but didn't make them admit it, and took the land, just like they did periodically with each other. Had they been able to unite and learn the plusses and minuses, they might have achieved a stalemate and therefore retained some actual sovereignty. But they could not unite, and for the same idiotic reasons the Scots, Irish, and Confederacy (where states did not share stores) lost. Male vanity of the dunderheaded warrior/hussar class. That's a somewhat precious slap, yes, but really, when reduced to essentials, that's all it was.
Everyone wanted to be king/warchief/leader, win a battle or two, and then retire to the adoration of the women, having 'proven' themselves. There were things more important than what might be called their personal 'honor,' like their family's survival and prosperity and growth. That's what makes their civilizations inferior: they could not protect themselves, but to the end honored warriors of the individual tribes/clans.
That's what makes the Osceolas and Tecumsehs and King Phillips so impressive in many ways: they at least sensed this failure (they couldn't research the history or read up on things) and tried to meet the need, although even so they didn't have a firm grasp on what they were up against, ever. But they somehow saw or sensed the end result if nothing were done. All told, that's pretty damned impressive even yet. Tecumseh was venerated by the whites, which probably means his story is inflated, and Osceola ended up with his head on a bedstand, a dissing that suggest he was greatly feared but really wasn't all that. Probably what the Japanese skulls suggested to white America after being walloped for six months at everything, everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 26, 2009 11:40:41 GMT -6
<we are certainly called upon by our creator to make this world a better place. Otherwise, why are we here?> Don't non-believers think like that? Some may, but I'm just refering to what Christian believers think. Now the Native Americans probably have the same concept in their pagan religion of the "One God," and I don't have a problem with that. Both sides were fighting for what they believed was right by their creator, as is usually the case. Of course, Red Cloud and others found a different way of following what the One God wanted than did Sitting Bull. Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 26, 2009 12:39:25 GMT -6
<Of course, Red Cloud and others found a different way of following what the One God wanted than did Sitting Bull>
This has got me to thinking . . . just how much of a factor did religion play regarding why Indians fought? I doubt they were trying to force their religious beliefs on Whites and rarely did I ever read where an Indian used religion as a reason to fight and/or resist White advancement on their lands.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 26, 2009 13:41:18 GMT -6
It's a good question. They had a very strong pagan religion, and the tribal shamans always had a lot of "indirect" influence over the activity of the tribe, and even the Warriors.
We don't always hear about, in our histories, the advice of the shamans or "medicine men," but if they were like most primitive human societies, they rarely did anything without consulting the "signs." If you read Native histories they talk a lot more about religion, visions, meditations, and consulting with the God(s) than histories written from the white point of view.
So I've seen where the entire decision as to whether to go to war with a tribe, or the Americans, could be heavily influenced by what the shaman said. I've also seen references, I believe in Bray, where saavy Warrior/politicians would influence the shamans to say what they wanted them to say.
Which is closer to the truth? I'll bet it is highly variable...that some tribes, and some individual leaders, were more influenced by their religion than others. But I lean toward the thesis that religion played a greater role, rather than a moderate one, in most tribal decisions. But I also think that most medicine men were rather practical men, and knew when they could, or couldn't, buck the "popular sentiment" for some tribal decisions.
Then you get the rare mystics, that are shaman, politician, and Warrior all wrapped in one, like Sitting Bull, and to some extent, Crazy Horse. They are very powerful leaders because they coalesce many elements of tribal decision-making into one person. Works as long as that person is successful. <g.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 28, 2009 15:38:13 GMT -6
We did conquer the Indians but didn't make them admit it, and took the land, just like they did periodically with each other. Had they been able to unite and learn the plusses and minuses, they might have achieved a stalemate and therefore retained some actual sovereignty. But they could not unite, and for the same idiotic reasons the Scots, Irish, and Confederacy (where states did not share stores) lost. Male vanity of the dunderheaded warrior/hussar class. That's a somewhat precious slap, yes, but really, when reduced to essentials, that's all it was. That's what makes the Osceolas and Tecumsehs and King Phillips so impressive in many ways: they at least sensed this failure (they couldn't research the history or read up on things) and tried to meet the need, although even so they didn't have a firm grasp on what they were up against, ever. But they somehow saw or sensed the end result if nothing were done. All told, that's pretty damned impressive even yet. Tecumseh was venerated by the whites, which probably means his story is inflated, and Osceola ended up with his head on a bedstand, a dissing that suggest he was greatly feared but really wasn't all that. Probably what the Japanese skulls suggested to white America after being walloped for six months at everything, everywhere. I totally agree as for your previous post on the army vs civies.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 28, 2009 15:54:55 GMT -6
I doubt there was much philosophical difference between the behavior of the Cheyenne and the Hunkpapas that the Army was worried about. I don't see that the Army made much distinction between these particular hostile bands...N.Cheyenne, and Sitting Bull's and Crazy Horse's Lakotas. They were all one objective, as an Army objective, in THIS campaign. Clair, when I posted regarding your comment, I was ONLY referring to your statement about Sitting Bull's leadership over the hostile bands, and I was trying to make the point that Dull Knife's Cheyennes were not under Sitting Bull's leadership then. I was not saying anything one way or the other about any philosophical differences between the different tribes, bands, or even U.S. military forces for that matter. WY man it does count which tribe it was in the way that such deeds as fighting shoshones would be a sign of lack of strategy and a waste of energy if it was done under SB leadership. I do think SB was a special leader who tried to make the most of it. Some on the internet try to revise sitting bulls history. I red the baby killer argument as a menace to his own people not to return from canada and now Clair again confusing us. The Cheyennes did what they wanted but the Hunkpapas of SB were not on the same path, as SB had vision. For me Sitting Bull was of the same level as Tecumseh. Both came to late, both tried, sacrified their lives, but hold on to their ideas. When it came to selling land or allotting in the late 1880, after the surrender 1881, SB was the only one who bore wisdom , is my opinion.
|
|