|
Post by conz on Sept 12, 2007 20:11:00 GMT -6
Okay, gang ... I guess the secret's out. Ugh. --t. lol...even West Pointers pee in their sinks, Trish. That's an inside joke...as the next grad you meet about his Plebe year toilet habits. Hmmm...how to frame THAT investigative question? ConZ
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 17, 2007 21:39:36 GMT -6
In regard to the soap opera aspect of this thread, I think that's why the designation, "Tupperware" is used. If this sort of gossip is not your cup of tea, then don't read Tupperware threads.
I guess I should change to "undecided," but I have trouble with some aspects of a Custer-Eliza relationship. Given the racial attitudes of the time, it's quite possible that Eliza mouthed off in some totally unforgivable way, and that GAC was in agreement with Libbie in firing her. It's one thing to see actual slavery as wrong, and another to see blacks as the equals of whites. Lincoln was actually in favor of sending them all to Liberia, if I'm not mistaken. And it was the racial attitudes of the times that enabled Custer to decimate Indians with equanimity--after all, they weren't white.
And based on her photos, I have trouble describing Eliza as pretty, but maybe the camera didn't do her justice.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 18, 2007 21:33:15 GMT -6
In regard to the soap opera aspect of this thread, I think that's why the designation, "Tupperware" is used. If this sort of gossip is not your cup of tea, then don't read Tupperware threads. I guess I should change to "undecided," but I have trouble with some aspects of a Custer-Eliza relationship. Given the racial attitudes of the time, it's quite possible that Eliza mouthed off in some totally unforgivable way, and that GAC was in agreement with Libbie in firing her. It's one thing to see actual slavery as wrong, and another to see blacks as the equals of whites. Lincoln was actually in favor of sending them all to Liberia, if I'm not mistaken. And it was the racial attitudes of the times that enabled Custer to decimate Indians with equanimity--after all, they weren't white. And based on her photos, I have trouble describing Eliza as pretty, but maybe the camera didn't do her justice. Your thoughts of Custer's racism are ridiculous. The racial crimes against the Indians reached their highest potency upon his death. Custer may not have sucked up to every aspect of their "proud culture" but he knew the value of a person far more than the others who came after him. Do your research, look for who gave Custer his orders, look for who stripped him of his authority and reduced him in rank. YOU BLAME GRANT FOR THESE THINGS. Grant and the other generals gave the orders, Custer had to beg for scraps the last years of his life and he obeyed. Look for who gave Custer his marching orders before you call him racist, look at the man's own words and how he was treated by the whites when he stuck up for the rights of people of all races. Find another whipping boy to lash for the sins of the whites. If Custer is to bear the sins of the whites, then I guess you'll then signal out Shaka Zulu to be blamed for the sins of the entire continent of Africa? Custer and Shaka are great and powerful soldiers of war, they are to be held accountable for what THEY DO, and are not to be held responsible for the sins of their entire race. Before you call Custer racist, I dare you, Give me ONE record of Custer using the word black person before calling him racist. Before calling him racist,I want a record of Custer pistol whipping a peaceful man of color and leaving him to die in the streets. You know where you can find these records? In the Easter Bunny's file cabinet next to Santa's midgets and about a million other things that DON'T EXIST! It is the pressures of the whites that muscled Custer out of his great power and downsized his role in the military and forced him to beg for their scraps. If I'm going out, I'll do it with a bang, baby! Chew on that RECORD, look for your very own eyes at how Custer was marked for demonstrating his beliefs toward the value of persons of color, look at that and tell me he's racist. Look at how they forced him from their power circles for saying whats right and sticking up for the black man. Are racists not plentiful enough that we have to build new ones? If you want racists, you can go down to Hitler's workshop and find your self some Claus Barbies, Malcom Xs , Nathan Bedford Forrests and other peoplin that regard. They are plentiful, and we don't need more of them. Shame on these ridiculous hearsays. You are all full of it if you consider me "un-credible" and then turn around to listen to things like this. SHAME! Trace yourselves back to the civil war and look at Custer's handy work more carefully before jumping on me, or the great general. Then look at Grant's handy work and tell me his stench does not reak all over the Indian wars? Tell me that Grant did not steal the civil war victory from the great ones like Custer, Sheridan, Sherman, LINCOLN, tell me that Grant is not a stumpy little wart with not a clue in his head. Any of the good generals I mentioned will tell you of Custer's sharpness and bold valour. Lincoln himself predicted Custer's death with Libbie saying quote something like "Are you the wife of the man that charges deep in the heat of battle with a whoop and a shout? I hear he's gonna quit all of that" to which Libbie responded that she couldn't convince him otherwise and Lincoln responded "Oh, so you'll be a widow then?". And it was so. First, it was Richard III who discouraged Kings from approaching the battle field. Then it was Napoleon, who actually was a good hand to hand fighter, who inspired generals to sit down. Then there was Custer, who would not be seated, and fought ferociously, and his brother Tom the same, and Custer yearned for a charge and was made to beg for the honor of fighting alongside his men..............................and he died with those men and from this day forth there have been virtually no generals to even step foot on a battlefield and it is disgraceful. War is to be fought with brain and brawn and no one is to have a seat unless they only have one of the two talents to go on. Meaning, there are brainy, and there are brawn, and there are brainy and brawn, and if Custer had none of this then how did he get where he was? 23 year old general? It was well earned and unfairly stripped by that jealous bastard Grant, who Custer should have been, but wasn't, jealous of. Custer should have had Lee's surrender, Lee was to great to go down for Grant.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 19, 2007 13:07:30 GMT -6
<You know where you can find these records? In the Easter Bunny's file cabinet next to Santa's midgets and about a million other things that DON'T EXIST!>
No Santa's midgits or Easter Bunny? Now you did it! Of course you must realize this means war!
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 19, 2007 14:02:01 GMT -6
I just wanted to mention that a different word was edited into my loooooong statement above.
It was probably for the better, but for the record he's another edited version of what I said.........
"give me a record of Custer using the word Ni****, before calling him a racist, give me a record of him pistol whipping an innocent man of color before saying he's prejudice." Thats what I meant, I should have chosen my words more carefully so they didn't have to be edited, but my point still stands.
To crzhrs- BRING IT ON! I'll send Cupid to fire a real arrow through Mr. Bunny's button nose! hee, hee, hee!
Now you're all getting me really disturbed when I'm having fantasies of putting a hit on the Easter Bunny!
Worn out Stranger!
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Sept 19, 2007 16:12:29 GMT -6
Strange, for someone who purports to abhor 'dirt', starting a poll about whether or not Custer and Eliza cohabited is hardly a ringing endorsement of that view. It might, in fact, have been a rather amusing thread but you never learn when to back off and try to be objective. You rant on among other things about Custer not being a racist and you use extreme examples such as violence and insulting names as the type of behaviour that Custer did not use against negroes. The trouble is that you do not know what defines a racist and it is not anything extreme. A racist is simply someone who believes that his/her own race is inherently superior to others. I will say quite unequivocally here that George Armstrong Custer, a man of his time, was a racist. He was not personally cruel or violent to them, but he believed that both the negro and the American Indian were inferior to the white race. In keeping with all the other 1870's military officers he adopted an attitude of racial arrogance toward his Indian opponents and that was probably the prime reason he and his men were killed at the Little Big Horn. If you are not inclined to take my word for it I would recommend that you read Roger Darling's 'A Sad and Terrible Blunder' for an insight into the U.S. Army's views on the Indians as fighters and when you have done that research you will be better placed to understand that your 'perfect man' was tainted with the prejudices of his day, just as we all can be in our own lives. In any event PLEASE do SOME research so that you will be more likely to start a worthwhile thread on these boards.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 19, 2007 16:25:05 GMT -6
Absolutely, Hunk. I think what we would tend to think is that GAC was a man of his times and his outlook reflected the usual white-held prejudices of the times. Although there are other professional reasons behind his requests to not be colonel of a black regiment, the fact stands that he could have been a full colonel but he chose not to serve ... I think it would be best for Strange to find these "other" reasons on his own.
Once again, a man of his times. --t.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 19, 2007 22:42:04 GMT -6
Strange, for someone who purports to abhor 'dirt', starting a poll about whether or not Custer and Eliza cohabited is hardly a ringing endorsement of that view. It might, in fact, have been a rather amusing thread but you never learn when to back off and try to be objective. You rant on among other things about Custer not being a racist and you use extreme examples such as violence and insulting names as the type of behaviour that Custer did not use against negroes. The trouble is that you do not know what defines a racist and it is not anything extreme. A racist is simply someone who believes that his/her own race is inherently superior to others. I will say quite unequivocally here that George Armstrong Custer, a man of his time, was a racist. He was not personally cruel or violent to them, but he believed that both the negro and the American Indian were inferior to the white race. In keeping with all the other 1870's military officers he adopted an attitude of racial arrogance toward his Indian opponents and that was probably the prime reason he and his men were killed at the Little Big Horn. If you are not inclined to take my word for it I would recommend that you read Roger Darling's 'A Sad and Terrible Blunder' for an insight into the U.S. Army's views on the Indians as fighters and when you have done that research you will be better placed to understand that your 'perfect man' was tainted with the prejudices of his day, just as we all can be in our own lives. In any event PLEASE do SOME research so that you will be more likely to start a worthwhile thread on these boards. Hunk I have and AM still doing research. I insist that Grant's tactics are contaminating Custer's and that Custer is bearing blame for clear orders. I started a thread called "Grant's Playbook" in order to shed some light on his strategies and really find EXACTLY the culprit responsible for so many great Generals doing questionable tactics during the Indian wars, not just Custer. Economic pressure is one of Grants most well known tactics and there fore it is a great reason behind the killing of the buffalo, burning of villages, etc. Grant cannot fight like wars are to be fought so instead he fights a little dirtier and thats why I want people to pay some attention to Grant. Custer is not without imperfection, but any one with the slightest knowledge of Custer's mighty civil war record, and the records of other great generals, should know for a fact that many of these questionable tactics reek of Grant. Since he's president, he's throwing down the orders and having fights his way. Grant doesn't fight in the traditional sense, he applies economic pressure, and that is how many horrible transgressions were committed against the Indians and their land. Surely you all must wonder of Custer's sudden change in tactics? Surely you must question these things. Well, look who has command in the white house. It definitely needs thought, how many of us really ever think of Grant in these cases? I shamed to know I'm just thinking of him now. Custer is the personification of every thing that went on during the Indian wars so he is trashed for bearing the sins of others. Narrow it down to what he did, of his own accord and not even under order for that matter. You'll be surprised at what you find. I suggest that we try a discussion on my Grant thread in the Indian Wars section where I've asked these things. These are the points I've wanted to make, but maybe failed to articulate. And still, in regard to Custer's "racism", none of you have put up solid record. I won't even call him a man of his time, he's far beyond his years. I've read his own words, and I read each chapter in full. I have a sense of Custer's feelings toward Indians. Its like I say, he doesn't suck up to every aspect of their culture yet there are some things he likes. He feels the need to justify his kind remarks toward the Indians by jotting down what can be considered "white man perspective" on account of the fact that his rank was always being threatened with every kind word he made toward ethnics, there for to protect himself from what we know occurred when he made approving statements toward persons of Color he took a "white tone" to his words, but merely a tone, and by no means have I found him to say demeaning things to Indians. Custer never thought they were stupid either, nor has he really assumed that of any one often. He did stick up for settler's rights, and believed in that, and rightly so because the Plains Indians were horrible to settlers and Custer does not ignore what they do, but he did admire their singing and dancing and their wardrobe while paying respect to their land (Custer's writings are very big on his observations and appreciation of nature). But Custer is not a suck up, and he doesn't have to be. The indians often admired people like Crook who would suck up to all of their culture and not follow through with his word. Custer was good to his word. In the situation of the kidnapping of the two girls, Custer can be questioned for not releasing the chief as he "said". Custer reminded the captive chief of his conditions where two things were asked............... 1. Return the girls or the chiefs are to be killed. 2. Return to the reservations and all captives will be released. The girls were returned and Custer spared the chief's life, but they did not meet the second condition therefore Custer could not honor the full promise. This situation is one of my favorites in Custer's writings, and truly one of his finest moments when read how he handled it. In typical Custer fashion he explains the proper actions taken and is far from ambiguity in his words. You're never see things like this always with Crook, Crook and others will not often document things like Custer does because they play dirtier than him. No one is Perfect, but Custer comes close when it comes to war. Strange One
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 7:22:09 GMT -6
Benteen called Custer's book MY LIFE ON THE PLAINS . . . My LIE on the Plains.
Custer wrote a number of articles for magazines & newspapers using pen names so he could condemn the Grant Admin, other officers, and promote those he supported or opposed Grant.
While Custer would not burn crosses on a non-White person's lawn he was a product of his time and felt anyone not White was inferior.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 8:36:14 GMT -6
Strange--
The problem with the stuff about Grant is that most of the folks here already recognise that GAC's hands were pretty much tied by orders from above. There's nothing new to your argument--except instead of hating Benteen or Reno for some imagined crime against humanity, you're substituting Grant. That has always been the issue with Custer--there are those of us who can see through the orders and see the man, and those unenlightened ones out yonder who don't and continue to believe that GAC was some kind of unleashed Indian killer ...
And look at your own words when it comes to racism. You wrote, "he never thought they were stupid, either ..." Now, that's enlightened thinking on GAC's part. On top of that, you maintain that GAC couldn't suck up to "ethnics" because it might "threaten his rank" ... I have never seen any reputable source material that has maintained such silliness. The only threat to GAC's rank was his own bad behaviour--such as going AWOL in 1867!
And I think you might need a lesson in the differences between the role of the Commander in Chief and that of Chief General of the United States. One is a civilian, the other military.
--t.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 8:38:12 GMT -6
Craz ...
Hang on tight to your dreams, the Sox will get in ... somehow. Hate that they lost yesterday! I CANNOT STAND THE EVIL EMPIRE!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 8:59:54 GMT -6
Grant didn't even want Custer to go along with the 7th. Custer had been feuding with the Grants over the Belknap Scandal and was ordered to stay in Washington.
It was only Terry--who supposedly was begged by Custer--who interceded with Grant to get Custer reinstated. And Terry had to go through Sheridan/Sherman to get to Grant.
And how did Custer show his thanks to Terry? He stated to a friend that he would cut loose from Terry once he had the chance. And we have all speculated that is what he may have done in regarding his "orders" from Terry.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 9:01:16 GMT -6
Sox lead now down to 1-1/2 games . . . still ahead but rapidly sinking.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 20, 2007 10:45:09 GMT -6
Since "my" Jays have no hope of making the playoffs after their injury-riddled season, I sincerely hope that their sweep of the Bosox does not help the durned Yankees claim the division title. The Sox will be in the playoffs anyway, and so will be the Yanks, but I'd like to see the Sox win.
In my early years, I was a Bob Feller, Al Rosen and hence Cleveland fan, and both the Bosox and Yanks were dreaded enemies [although I did love Teddy Ballgame, and still do]. Nowadays, the Sox are the lesser of the "evils."
Gordie, she said: "Baby, everything is alright - uptight, clean out of sight".....................................
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2007 12:48:55 GMT -6
More good points, but do try and freshen your research and broaden thy judgment. I have read some of Custer's own words and I don't find him focusing on the negative all to often or saying nasty things. From what your referencing, it appears you guys are talking about the writing feuds between he and Benteen where they used the news to toss each other's names in the dirt. Recently I've been looking up on Benteen and i've found him to be better than I thought but for many of you to quoute a Custer hater so freely is a bit much. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would not want to defend nasty statements made by Custer toward others. I still do not see Custer speaking widely negative of anyone, or even small negatives for that matter.
My Life On The Plains is hardly something to critique if you had read it. Many chapters are mostly speaking about the nature and landscape while then getting into the wars of coarse. I'm guessing that if Benteen is sincere in his criticism, then it may be that he's irritated by not necessarily the fact or fiction ratio, but rather the STYLE to which Custer writes. Custer has a very good sense, and sometimes a overly smothering intellectual sense, of literature. Custer writings can easily be taken as far too "smart sounding" and people can get ticked off by it.
I will make no attempt to defend his awol . It was definitely out of line.
However I don't think its completely the awol that affected his standings in the least. Like Patton, the other officer's and leaders hate his mouth. But unlike Patton, Custer had very good things to say that he was punished for. And his civil rights position did get him flack, and that cannot be ignored. Once again I would like some of you to describe his racial prejudices more thoroughly and do try read more before jumping to conclusions over his writings. I am very aware that people have quoted him in ways that make him sound bigoted, but upon reading him in full you will find a much better perspective and see the context thereof.
I actually think Custer was somewhat disappointed with the Indians in a way. I think he had a fascination with them as a kid and may have regarded some as heroes and that when he started hearing horror stories from the settlers and their experiences, Custer suddenly felt differently about them .
You'll notice that Custer was looking forward to a magnificent adventure when he heard he was gonna be fighting and even working with Indians. In his mind I think he felt it was gonna be greater action and adventure than the civil war. Then Custer got there and he wasn't allowed to do anything his way and the terrain was very uncomfortable and the Indians were not what he thought they were, though he still liked their singing and dancing and outfits, etc. Thats what I'm picking up in his writings, I think Custer wanted something special and didn't often get what he had in mind during this time. Are any of you picking up on this? I'm hoping its a good lead.
Once again I'm not seeing Racism being at all prominent here, not with Custer. Even the misdeeds committed against the Indians seemingly come from Grant's very playbook. Think about Economic Pressure. The military ordered slaughter of the buffalo sounds exactly like Grant's sharp economic manuevers where he had southern farms burned and so on. Granted, Custer has used economic pressure as well. The difference is the level of economic pressures. Custer will use this strategy on occasion but he prefers REAL combat, Grant was not entirely good at real combat so I think he invented Economic Pressure to make up for his.......short comings? Thats right, Custer could whip that little stump any day!
So just try and get a feel of everything. I won't say Custer is perfect but surely you cannot think that some one as practically invincible during Civil War could possibly fall so short on his own accord when fighting the Indians? But I think LBH was definitely his own, seemingly his last shot at redemption after so much had been stripped. I insist it was a worthwhile maneuver, and still very sound despite human error. Its also interesting because it almost outfoxed Crazy Horse's brilliant known strategies. The Fetterman massacre (I hope I got the name right) was done by luring a large group of soldiers with small groups of Indian and surprising them with overwhelming odds. Custer flipped the tables. He hunted for the largest village. He had the Idea to trick them into thinking that large groups of soldiers were there and to put the indians in a position where they felt surrounded (this tactic sounds like the one that was properly carried out by Gideon in a way. Just in case some of you are aware of Biblical warriors.). Custer was planning for them to panic and then was getting ready to swipe the women and children. Much of this worked, the Indians were surprised twice, but the positions were not held properly and I blame Reno more than Benteen for causing the collapse of the whole strategy, his position was the most important but it was too much for him, Custer should have either placed himself where Reno was or he should have put someone else in charge of that area. I will cut Benteen A LITTLE SLACK in regard to the fact that Reno kept him from being where he was supposed to be by aiding in the retreat of the hysterical nit wit. But Custer's plan was still more sound than anyof us will ever know, because it was poorly executed.
Stranger of night.
|
|