|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 13, 2009 14:54:31 GMT -6
Sorry, but none of those can stand up to the American Army. They simply aren't developed enough. Faith can't substitute for Army training and organization, and a more developed officer corps trained in the Art of War.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 15:25:34 GMT -6
<They weren't thinking like civilized men> Here we go again . . . they are not civilized so we must kill them. I don't think we should kill them if we can help it. The trouble with less civilized societies is that we can't live with them in their state...they don't have enough rules. So we impose rules on them in order to coincide with them, and in the process, a lot of the less civilized people get killed (as do some of ours). If we ourselves were MORE civilized than we are, we could figure out ways of coexisting without killing as many of them as we did. But we weren't there yet, and aren't really there today, IMO. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 15:31:46 GMT -6
OK quote below these more hostile tribes the friendly ones that did better then those lousy sioux, apache ute and navaho to preserve their genes, language (a little) and acres : we listen to your long gene list of tribes (hopis don't count for evident reasons) : I think this is what you wanted: Tribes that fared the worst after surrendering: Sioux Northern Cheyenne Apache Comanche Tribes that fared better than the above after ceasing being "hostile:" Cherokee Choctaw Arikara Crow Arapaho Shoshone Pawnee The questions for study: Was there any relevant difference in the living conditions or futures of these tribes? If so, why was there a difference? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 15:40:29 GMT -6
read any newspapers lately on afghanistan pakistan and irak? any lessons about vietnam? "your" army is far better trained now and equipped centuries aheads ot those taliban apaches. we all know who will win in the end. your army will leave a big chaos like in irak . I study this intimately, of course...using both classified and unclassified sources, and work with lots of Soldiers who were there in all these wars. I think I have a pretty good handle on what's going on in these campaigns. Iraq will always be "big chaos," as you may define it. But I'm amazed at well they are doing, to tell you the truth. They are exceeding our expectations in preventing collapse of their society and nation. So far, so good. Could always change if we pull out precipitously, but so far the President has been keeping to our last President's plan and it is going quite well. To be sure, and they knew this before they started any campaign. But was it harder for them to protect their families in the villages they controlled, or harder for the Army to protect white settlers scattered all over who knows where, with the Army controlling none of them? I submit to you that the Army had the more difficult job protecting white civilians than the Warriors had protecting their families...don't you agree? The Warriors' vulnerability was not their civilians, really...it was their supplies...the logistics they required to stay at war...food, ponies, clothing, weapons and arms, etc. They could lose civilians and still fight...they couldn't lose those supplies though. THAT was their real weakness. So where do you believe the Warriors "ran out of men," then, if your thesis is correct? In what campaign did the Army outnumber the Warriors, presumably near the end of the Indian Wars if your theory of attrition is correct? Clair
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 13, 2009 18:13:52 GMT -6
1) Aye, I am what I am, always. No subterfuge, or subtely, or any of those s's, here. I do, however, like the imagery of "riding roughshod," but I hope it isn't over other people's posts. After all, I can't interrupt anyone's post, eh? You ALWAYS get your say, and I always enjoy reading it. 2) And isn't that just what this forum is for? Stating what you believe and offering why you believe it. Learning what others believe and replying why you don't believe THAT. And once in a while, maybe influencing a mind or learning something. 3) Then I must be doing it logically, effectively, and too well. Otherwise it would not bother those with different arguments. 4) Anyway, I'm not trying to denigrate anybody...it is like saying the Americans never listen to the Europeans because we never do what they want. Silly. We always listen, we always disagree, respectfully, and we always do what WE think is right. 5) To be sure. I always take the evidence seriously, and either: a) explain why evidence doesn't apply to the argument, b) explain why the evidence doesn't really say what the poster thinks it says, c) show contradicting evidence and why it is better. d) I think I've done this is most every case...if I missed something, I apologize, but if you show it again, I'll apply one of the above rules if I think the reasoning is incorrect. Is saying you believe somebody to be incorrect in their conclusions the same as insulting them? Or only if you do it effectively? 6) Hope is not a plan. <g> Use reasoned arguments, based on experienced and learned judgment. 7) There are many different viewpoints here...and we should be very glad of that. You never want me to agree with you, or we wouldn't have much of a forum, would we? And I'm giving you the best soapbox to share your ideas that you could possibly have! So have fun with it. I enjoy your ideas, and I enjoy sharing why I find them faulty, and I enjoy when you challenge me on that. In a gentlemanly way. Clair
1) Unsurprisingly, you miss the point here. The 'rough shod' referred to your responses to other peoples posts, where you simply say they are wrong without producing anything concrete to validate your own views. 2) Stating what we believe based on research and quoted sources is one thing. Stating what you believe based on a romanticised image of the post-CW army etc., mostly without reference to any respected source is another. Your arguments do not influence anyone, because they are generally without foundation. I am sure that you could contribute something positive to these discussions if you stick to what you truly know and avoid unfounded generalisations as a means of countering arguments against which you can produce no valid defence. 3) No, your are just doing it in a way which has no merit and which therefore, is bound to irritate. If I quote a respected source that says something is red and you respond by saying that can't be right because you think it is blue, without providing any proof to endorse your belief, then all you are doing is offering us an unsubstantiated personal opinion which is about as much use to a historical debate as a camel is in the Arctic. 4) You may not be trying to denigrate anyone, but your clumsy attempts at trying to refute the most obviously undeniable facts, have that inevitable effect. The rest of your post here is just absurd and childish. 5) If you say you consider the evidence seriously then I am prepared to take your word for it, but: a) Might be applicable in some cases, but rarely in all as you tend to infer. b) That is not what you do. In fact you do quite the opposite by going off at a tangent in an attempt to obfuscate the original intent of the other poster with unconfirmed personal opinions of your own. c) As you rarely supply anything that can be accurately described as evidence your contradictions are just that, with nothing to back them up. d) In a post on the 'Cavalry Training' thread I quoted a passage from 'Life of a Soldier on the Western Frontier'. Your response was 'That's a lie etc.,' but without any evidence to show that anything in the quote was a lie. That is insulting and is but one of many instances I could have cited. Saying someone is incorrect in their conclusions is acceptable IF you can prove they are in error. To say that they are incorrect because you personally do not agree with their evidence or the arguments they base on it, is both arrogant and insulting. As a further example I repeat one of your quotes:- Historians with similar, and more, experience show it in their products. Read Ed Bearrs [sp?]... some marvelous stuff you can just tell a Soldier wrote it.Clair
Now Ed Bearrs has written some very good books on the Civil War and WW2 and I have every respect for him. You however accord him a special status because he writes from a soldier's perspective. Yet you did not accord the same status to Colonel William Addleman Ganoe, U.S. Army, when I quoted from his book 'The History of the United States Army' simply because what he said about the U.S. Army in the period 1865-1880 did not mirror your own views. That is hypocrisy Clair and is a constant in your posts, earning you little respect. 6) Irrelevant 7) Indeed, there are many viewpoints on these boards and I value all of them that provide food for thought because they are well reasoned from a reliable source. Mere uncorroborated personal opinions, argued repetitively, provide nothing of merit. Disagreements are healthy and stimulating, but only if the arguments are developed skilfully from evidence, not braggadocio. Finally, as a point of accuracy, it is Diane that provides us all with the 'soapbox' on which to air our views. I do have fun here and I thank her for that. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 19:16:12 GMT -6
1) Unsurprisingly, you miss the point here. The 'rough shod' referred to your responses to other peoples posts, where you simply say they are wrong without producing anything concrete to validate your own views. I apologize, then. I am happy to provide any evidence a questioner requires, if I am able. Simply ask. In some long posts as we have been having, I do have to "drive by" the several points, so if there is one that particularly interests you, I am happy to drill down to the nitty-gritty details. I think those are the most fun discussions. <g> I have plenty of sources. Just ask...I certainly don't expect you to change your mind based upon just my say-so. If you are really interested, I am happy to point you toward sources that support my view that you may have more credibility in. First, though, I would need to know what YOU consider to be "credible" evidence. I just hope it is not "if it says the Army are the good guys, then it CAN'T be credible." Sometimes I think that is how people really judge evidence, eh? I can back up, for days and days and days, EVERYTHING that I state. Just ask. That is what debate is all about. If I refute your evidence, I generally say why. Did you find a case where I did not? If so, I apologize. Show me, and I'll correct that. I'm all about evidence...you just need to ask. I wonder what your definition of "irrefutable evidence" is? That raises red flags. If ALL my sources are faulty, and ALL your sources are gospel, all we can do is share our basis for opinion, and leave it at that. But evenso, it is still a valuable discussion. I think you just need to live with that. You don't really need me to agree with you, or any of your opinions, do you? That is not what we are here for...to agree with each other. In fact, it is much better for learning if we continue to DISAGREE...don't you agree? Pick an argument, and just tell me what you require. I can learn, and will try to be more specific. Keep on me until I provide you with what you want...that is what drives our continued study, I think. That might be a good place to start. I'll try to go back and review that criticism. It could be I was just offering opinion, which is not meant to convince. If I really wanted to convince anyone that it was a lie, or lay out WHY I believe it to be a lie, I'll have to do better than that, to be sure. I don't recall that at all, but if it went down as you percieve, than I let you down, and apologize yet again. I'll go back and review that...I don't remember any mention of Col. Ganoe...I've never heard of him. I do have a book "History of the United States Army" by Weigley...it is one of our Officer bibles, taught at West Point. I fully agree. I think it is all right to start with braggadocio to present your thesis, but eventually you have to back it up with evidence on the details. I know...never mind the opinion of an Army officer...it has to be written in a book. Aye, and thank you, Miss Diane! Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 17, 2009 5:15:39 GMT -6
no back to the subject and your despisal of crazy horse and your praise of red cloud :
who was mainly responsible of killing the fetterman guys and who won the biggest victories over the us army?
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 17, 2009 6:19:46 GMT -6
no back to the subject and your despisal of crazy horse and your praise of red cloud : who was mainly responsible of killing the fetterman guys and who won the biggest victories over the us army? Red Cloud masterminded the Red Cloud's War, which is why it is named after him. <g> Crazy Horse played a small, yet important, part in Fetterman's destruction. Crazy Horse is mostly responsible for the Little Big Horn battle, the Natives' greatest damage to an Army force, although it is hard to say that they "won" the battle, seeing the consequences of that fight. I don't despise Crazy Horse as a Warrior...I admire him very much for that, as did most Army officers. I do, however, despise his morality...getting his families killed to no purpose. That is despicable in your book, isn't it? The unnecessary deaths of innocents? Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2009 14:36:21 GMT -6
Morality is based one one's own beliefs.
There is no one set of morality that we all follow.
<That is despicable in your book, isn't it?> Again do not be telling us what is despicbable or not. We and all those who preceded us acted on what they believed was right and best for them and their families/followers.
I for one will not judge others by what they believed was in in their best interest. Just because it's not what I or you would do doesn't mean we are right and someone else is wrong.
I salute anyone who is/was willing to make a stand for their beliefs, regardless of the odds or force they oppose.
Afterall the Colonies behaved most traitorously when they made a stand against a World Power because of their believes. And I am not going to castigate or insult Native Americans for taking a stand for their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 17, 2009 19:58:36 GMT -6
Again do not be telling us what is despicbable or not. We and all those who preceded us acted on what they believed was right and best for them and their families/followers. I disagree...it matters not one whit what THEY thought was right and best and moral. It ONLY matters what WE think is right and best and moral. Of course THEY thought they were right. We can, and should, believe that Crazy Horse's philosophy was wrong, in order to advance human civilization, is my thesis. I'm wondering whom among us thinks that getting your families killed by fighting when no victory is at all possible can be a moral thing? Is that civilization? Or is that arrogance and barbarism? It only matters what we today think.... So judge. YOUR future is at stake, by the judgments you make. But you must know what is right for YOU, if you were in their situation. That is what is important to figure out. That is plain silly, crzyhrs, and you know it. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, S. Hussein, ALL thought they were making stands for their beliefs. You condone that? Of course not...so why do you give the murderous Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse a pass? Certainly not by the standard you just made here. Try again. The Colonists were right. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse were wrong, by the standards I have already enumerated above. The Colonists WON...they believed they could win to make a better world, and made the sacrifices necessary for that new world to happen. SB and CH, on the other hand, KNEW that they would kill their families by staying wild, and yet they did it anyway. They decided to allow their women and children to die in war...the women and children had little choice. If there would be something to be gained by that is one thing, but to no purpose? That should be immoral in anyone's book, then or today, I propose. Red Cloud and Sitting Bull were opposites in this. Only one can be right, and one must be right. Choose who is to be most praised and emulated...the peacekeeper or the baby killer? Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 18, 2009 9:17:23 GMT -6
< It ONLY matters what WE think is right and best and moral>
That sounds like Manifest Destiny.
<I salute anyone who is/was willing to make a stand for their beliefs, regardless of the odds or force they oppose>
I meant that for those who are oppresssed, down-trodden, treated unjustly & racially suppressed, so don't add your beliefs to mine.
You are sounding more and more like some right-wing zealot, words such as "baby killer", "murderous", "arrogance", "barbarism" and your use of code words for racial superiority is becomre more obvious.
Think whatever you want about those who fight for freedom . . . but we are seeing more and more of just what you are about.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 18, 2009 10:32:39 GMT -6
< It ONLY matters what WE think is right and best and moral> That sounds like Manifest Destiny. No...it is independent thinking, You, Crzhrs, have to decide for YOURSELF, what is right and wrong, and condemn what you believe is wrong. If you believe scalping and cutting babies hands off is wrong, you should say so, and judge those who did it as doing something wrong, even if they didn't think it was wrong. I think it is very important to the next generation that you declare these acts of barbarism as wrong and to be avoided. You can't say "it was okay for them, but it is not okay for us." That's a cop-out. But we do believe the same thing here...I also admire those who fight for the oppressed, down-trodden, ugly, smelly, etc. etc. My condemnation has nothing to do with this fight...it is against those who FIGHT FOR NOTHING. It is not enough to fight against a wrong...if you are going to get your family killed, you MUST, MUST, MUST expect to get something for that sacrifice. or you are immoral doing it. I'm not white...I'm green, just like all my fellow Soldiers. If I'm a racist, perhaps it is against the "liberal" race, but I have plenty of liberal family and friends, too, so that won't wash, either. We in the Army are just as quick to fight white red-necked Union workers striking on the railroads as we are hostile Warriors running from a stagecoach carrying long blonde scalps with them. It really isn't about race... I hope so, and we should hope that all my fellow Soldiers are as patient and restrained as I am... Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 18, 2009 11:46:37 GMT -6
<We in the Army are just as quick to fight white red-necked Union workers striking on the railroads as we are hostile Warriors running from a stagecoach carrying long blonde scalps with them>
Why "blonde"? Isn't that the stereotype of a "dark" man ravaging the "pure" White woman?
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 18, 2009 12:39:01 GMT -6
<We in the Army are just as quick to fight white red-necked Union workers striking on the railroads as we are hostile Warriors running from a stagecoach carrying long blonde scalps with them> Why "blonde"? Isn't that the stereotype of a "dark" man ravaging the "pure" White woman? Yes, that was rather my point. Of course, the stereotype IS true, eh? btw, have you seen indications that the Indians liked blonde scalps above all others? I.e., they were more valuable to them? Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 18, 2009 13:33:49 GMT -6
It wasn't so much the "value" of the scalp but what it represented.
To some, the scalp was not merely a trophy; it bestowed the possessor with the powers of the scalped enemy.
If a scalp was taken it was usually because the opponent was worthy.
PS: Whites offered bounties for Indian scalps . . . at least Indians didn't it for religious and/or cultural beliefs rather than for money.
|
|