|
Post by fred on Oct 5, 2007 13:16:24 GMT -6
This is an extremely interesting discussion. (I love discussions about politics and religion, don't you? They always seem to lead to such high intensity emotions, and if you are amongst friends-- with a couple of drinks-- they turn into the best evenings, ever.)
I do not doubt Custer was a religious man, though I do not know if the nauseating 20th-century phrase, "born again," applies to a man like George Custer. (If that offends anyone, I am sorry. I am something of a "strict constructionist" when it comes to certain things, and certain phraseology smacks too much like personal back-slapping to me. That particular phrase often makes me think of someone who never really cared and now suddenly has to announce his or her sudden "conversion" to "truth" to everyone in the world. It smells too much like false modesty, you know, "I'm so humble, I'm so modest, look at me, I'm so wonderful!" Keep it to yourself. It's like the gay person walking down the street with his zipper open. No interest, pal. If we want to discuss religion or sexuality, that's great, not a problem. It's the proselytizing and the back-slapping I object to. Again, if I am wrong, I'm sorry and certainly no offense is intended.)
As I said, I have no doubt Custer was reasonably religious and those of you who know his history a lot better than I do, would know the amount of truth in that. I do not, however, think it affected his duty as a soldier and I think his harshness-- both with his enemies and his own men-- had more to do with the times he lived in than with any religious bent he may or may not have had. I also think it was more of an environmental issue-- do not think "green" here. We are products of our environment, i.e., how we are raised, the social mores of the times, the harshness of how and where we live, how we must strive to survive, etc. Plus, I also think religion was easy in the 19th century, more cut and dried, less empiricism and science to interfere with what we wanted to believe. God ruled the 19th century; Darwin and Madeline Murray O'Hare either came later or were scoffed at.
Also, I am not sure I agree with "Strange's" comment about Custer "poorly executing a strategy" when he died. Custer's "strategy"-- I think it is better to use the word, "tactics"-- was not all that bad. Remember, there were circumstances that led him to do everything he did that day. Mistakes were clearly made, but not in the tactics themselves. That is an exceptionally long dissertation, in and of itself. In fact, I have already completed some 43,000 words in that particular dissertation, and figure I am not anywhere close to half done.
Of course, by the time the fan stops spinning over this post, I may be completely done.
Again, I have meant no disrespect to anyone in what I have written here. I just detect-- and detest-- a certain element of hypocrisy in some of this modern-day religiousness, though I begrudge no one their beliefs. It's probably the "marketing" that bugs me. I am an old-line Jesuit, myself, firm, though reasonable in my beliefs, and not always in agreement with my church.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 5, 2007 13:44:25 GMT -6
I do not think that the hardships of war would be enough to shake Custer's faith. I'd guess that if Custer were to ever lose his faith it would have been on a few circumstances such as below.........
1. Custer apparently had a fondness for the Indian ways of life that would later turn sour when he heard the horror stories from settlers. Therefore if he lost his faith in Indians, which seem to have impacted his life in a huge way, then he may have then lost faith in other things such as his wife, his comrades, his people, his faith, etc.. Custer's personality hit some kind of a snag during the Indian conflicts, we should all agree he was none to comfortable at this time with all of the frustration of his authority being stripped so low, and having been pressured by the higher offices, and then suddenly he may have soon got more suspicious of Libbie than he normally would have, then he's facing the fact that no one is pulling in any major victories against these tricky Indians, and he probably found himself catching the heat for not getting the Indians (which may have led him to bolder steps during Indian conflicts.), etc. All of this could have shaken his faith during the Indian conflicts. 2.Its possible that his leap to Christianity ma have attracted a few chucklehead religious circles that Custer may have gotten bored of. That could have weakened his faith. 3. And most important of all it may be that Custer just wasn't feeling the spirit around the time of the Indian wars as I think he may have. I think that many who fought the Indian wars, no matter how much adventure you're looking forward to, eventually understood how its just not a good war to fight. To fight in the Indian conflicts its like you have to assume the role of a police man rather than a general, much like the Iraq war is today where the troops are roaming the streets like policemen rather than soldiers, and in our very own country, cops are being trained like soldiers. And in the end, its hard to win the Indian wars the right way, and its a great blessing how things turned out with neither side really getting any where. But it is hard for me to know how great people like Custer and Crazy Horse and Geronimo have to all go down. I find it disgraceful to this nation that, out of all the generals in the US, the one to go down and the one to get spat on on through the ages is someone as great as Custer. And from what I know of Crazy Horse, I would like to have seen several other Indians get killed before him, there are some real scoundrels who survived on both sides. I made a mistake of condemning Crazy Horse because there are some other highly respected Indian leaders that I have found most unsavory and I foolishly pushed their sins on him. However at the same time, I can still find a more stable footing with the US against Crazy Horse but then again I'm still having difficulty in differentiating one Indian leader from another so I really have no standing to say anything at Crazy Horse. The Biggest atrocity, to me, is Geronimo. Geronimo is so beloved to me that if I had to choose I would have sacrificed Custer or Crazy Horse any day of the week just to have Geronimo set free. Believe it or not, I do consider Geronimo more perfect than Custer and the simplicity and near super human grace of his warfare his something to give either a run for the money. I'd hate to rank every one again but this is how I see every one stacking up in terms of my vision of warfare...........
(this excludes biblical warriors, and also even God himself and the angels)
1.Blackbeard 2.Geronimo 3. George Armstrong Custer 4.Patton
Thats kind of how I rank things.
BTW,dcary, the majority of Christainity also eats unclean meat and they pass around collection plates, traditions of man are not becoming of Christ. It is God's nature to have people come to him on their very own accord and not be forced or dragged in by man. When one is baptized they are asked a question, and unless you have a very smart infant that knows how to answer that question then it won't do them very much good to have waters splashed on them if they don't know what they are accepting. Also I'm probably opening a whole new barrel of monkey with a few statement above as well. The un-clean animals do not change because they are a Health Law, and Jesus does not change health laws. There is a verse that is mistaken as Jesus making unclean animals clean, but he's really stating how you're not to judge man in his meats. Pork is not a hellworthy sin in the least, its all a matter of maintaining the flesh bodies and keeping them healthy. Then there's the thing over collection plates and how churches collect money, people are suppose to give only of their free will and are not to be asked by the church because God does not send beggars as it is written. If some one is in a position to give and they are being taught properly by their church, then they are to give at their discretion and God blesses churches that abide in this.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Oct 5, 2007 14:26:59 GMT -6
"The Biggest atrocity, to me, is Geronimo. Geronimo is so beloved to me that if I had to choose I would have sacrificed Custer or Crazy Horse any day of the week just to have Geronimo set free. Believe it or not, I do consider Geronimo more perfect than Custer and the simplicity and near super human grace of his warfare his something to give either a run for the money. I'd hate to rank every one again but this is how I see every one stacking up in terms of my vision of warfare...........
(this excludes biblical warriors, and also even God himself and the angels)
1.Blackbeard 2.Geronimo 3. George Armstrong Custer 4.Patton"
You rank Geronimo as a greater war leader than Mangus, Cochise, Juh, Nana or Victorio?
That is really strange!
Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 5, 2007 14:33:08 GMT -6
I'd hate to rank every one again but this is how I see every one stacking up in terms of my vision of warfare........... (this excludes biblical warriors, and also even God himself and the angels) 1.Blackbeard 2.Geronimo 3. George Armstrong Custer 4.Patton Thats kind of how I rank things. Strange-- That's the damnedest list I have ever seen. I guess I cannot argue with Geronimo, but Blackbeard? Or maybe I just don't know my Blackbeard. It is the most unlikely grouping of people I have ever seen and I am not sure how you judge these individuals to include them in the same list. I also question including Custer and Patton on the same list. The George Patton of World War II was arguably one of the two finest generals of the American Army. Contrary to popular belief, the man was a tactical genius and an exceptional leader, a man of great flexibility (that should rock some worlds!) and as good as many of the German "combined arms" generals. Custer was more of a "hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle" kinda guy and while his tactics at the LBH are better than many think, he was too rash. Patton was not rash. Blackbeard would be right up near the top of my "rash list," but maybe you know something I don't. Geronimo I would put in there with Chief Joseph I think. "God" I might rank differently. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 5, 2007 15:53:03 GMT -6
I'd hate to rank every one again but this is how I see every one stacking up in terms of my vision of warfare........... (this excludes biblical warriors, and also even God himself and the angels) 1.Blackbeard 2.Geronimo 3. George Armstrong Custer 4.Patton Thats kind of how I rank things. Strange-- That's the damnedest list I have ever seen. I guess I cannot argue with Geronimo, but Blackbeard? Or maybe I just don't know my Blackbeard. It is the most unlikely grouping of people I have ever seen and I am not sure how you judge these individuals to include them in the same list. I also question including Custer and Patton on the same list. The George Patton of World War II was arguably one of the two finest generals of the American Army. Contrary to popular belief, the man was a tactical genius and an exceptional leader, a man of great flexibility (that should rock some worlds!) and as good as many of the German "combined arms" generals. Custer was more of a "hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle" kinda guy and while his tactics at the LBH are better than many think, he was too rash. Patton was not rash. Blackbeard would be right up near the top of my "rash list," but maybe you know something I don't. Geronimo I would put in there with Chief Joseph I think. "God" I might rank differently. Best wishes, Fred. A most tragic detail of Blackbeard was how his criminal life truly shined off a lot of his brilliance just like other great warriors that fell to lusts and greeds and other lives of crime. Blackbeard inflicted such a vision of himself using his size and dress that he made many surrender on sight (setting his own hair on fire while he prances around in the finest of dress with a whole chest full of fire arms and a physical stature that would make many wet themselves, that sort of thing. ). It was usually customary for most to surrender to pirates, but with Blackbeard it was always ensured due to his physicality and horrible appearances that were gifts both from God and from himself. He also carried more fire power than anyone, had he been alive today he would have been a one man crime syndicate in himself and would have carried more fire power and physicality than John Dilinger, Bonnie and Clyde, you name it, J. Edgar Hoover and his clowns would have never stood a chance against the Terrible Teach in his heyday. Blackbeard would have actually won his last battle if he had not been a criminal, his cannons blasted these enemy ships to pieces and he was fatally ambushed only when trying to loot the ship, he had just come off a big score and was down on man power because the greedy SOB had marooned dozens of his men, this short and bloody battle was fought mostly by Blackbeard himself who had to take on every one since most of his guys were surrendering or dead. Therefore, Blackbeard suffered unspeakable wounds yet he alone raged on and was strong enough to break the swords of his enemies in half as he went! Oh, yes, its all documented, nobody fights like Blackbeard, a great marksman with endless firepower, very awesome with the sword (with a lot of reach since he's 6'5"!), great physicality and brains and this is all from a drunken seedy lowlife who is probably kicking himself in the after life knowing what he could have been. If Drunk Blackbeard is so unstoppable, then a sober and just Blackbeard would have been like nothing any of ye had ever seen! Patton has a lot of personal faults that haul him down, he was far too nervous in hand to hand combat yet he still managed to be reasonably effective one on one and later turned out to be a beautifully crafted brain. I know for a fact that can be considered Custer ten times smarter than Patton could ever dream. Patton fought a modern war so he's often considered more brilliant than some of the past for those reasons. I definitely do not want to cut the man down too far (in fact, he needed to be built up because he was far to insecure to be cut down, and likewise every soldier should be motivated in his works) but he was far too emotional for his own good and he knew it, and he tried to motivate himself the best ways he could. In hand to hand, Patton ought to be a sure marksman and of the finest swords as well, yet in the heat of battle he grows to nervous, unlike Custer who's swordsmanship and gun play and physicality are the likes of which Patton's wounded rear would have ever dreamed, and the heat of battle is soothing to Custer who becomes even better in action as opposed to more casual outings where Patton is more likely to succeed with full colors in his fields. For instance, Patton's a crack shot when he's casually having target practice but when he was put to the test in the Olympics or when he was firing at the Mexicans (which he eventually did shoot down despite getting nervous and having to reload, the real Patton should have iced them like buttermilk.) he'll often lose everything he ought to have because his warrior spirit could never quite get into the game. It took some long stares in the mirror to set up a good warface for himself that would keep him on his better game. He was efficient in his famed shootout with the Mexicans, but he was not functioning on his full level that he ought to have. Custer is also a solid brain, and he has a lot of tricky tactics, albeit one he was killed for, thats why when you combine his physicality with his genius you get something far from what Patton could have dreamed. Interestingly enough, Patton and Custer are very similar in some ways, though I think Patton is clearly brought down by his prejudices whereas Custer can be considered a man of many cultures, which is the definition of a real American unlike that of Patton's snobbery aristocratic upbringing that faulted him up until his very last days. During the civil war, Custer was ironically fueled by Indians in some ways, his boyhood fascinations had him behaving these ways during the civil war, and Custer valued people of color. Patton however, held bitter hatreds for many of color and if he had only learned a few things of the Indian then maybe the Lord would have offered him more days as a Lion as he had so wished to live. Instead it was Custer who lived his days as a lion all the way to his death. And lets also give serious thought to how wise Custer is in YOUTH whereas Patton lived for so many years a bitter old man before even becoming aged at all, once again I am feeling uncomfortable to come so hard on Patton because he was one of my fondest childhood heroes, but knowing Custer was enough for me to even exalt him higher than my ivory pistoled champion, and one can only dream of the wisdom Custer could have achieved, had he lived longer than he did he would have proved far greater than one could ever imagine. Dead men cannot defend themselves so that opens the door for Grant or whomever to write their memoir and leave Custer out of their words while these old bastards who lived only because they were not Custer now have the opportunities to scribble down the glory they achieved by sitting down for the duration of their careers. And I don't entirely want to be mean to Grant either, in fact I think Custer attempted on numerous occasions to make things right with Grant and to come to him as fierce ally, yet Grant demonstrated a classic act just like that of King David and his great warrior nephew Joab, Grant kept himself stubborn and heard Custer not. So thats how I sees 'em, thats how I picks 'em. Take Care. Strange One
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Oct 5, 2007 17:00:50 GMT -6
Just before we get all caught up with Samson and Delilah similarities (or not), it is worth noting that GAC's favourite Biblical tale was that of Lazarus ... seems to make perfect sense to me!
Off to Monroe! --t.
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Oct 5, 2007 19:36:17 GMT -6
Ending on a perfect note, Trish! Tally ho, and the best of luck up yonder! Keep your ears open and your eyes on the "prize"! Bab
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 6, 2007 3:35:28 GMT -6
Enjoy the Monroe visit trish and I only hope that you are not treated as a fifth columnist!
Fred, great to have you back. I was just about to get the 'Without A Trace' team to start searching for you. FYI - Edward Teach a.k.a. Blackbeard. Born in Bristol, England. d.o.b. unknown, d.22/11/1718. Probably acted as a privateer for the British during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1713) which led him into piracy around 1716. For the two years 1716-18 he attacked shipping and land targets in the Caribbean Sea also coastal areas along the Virginia and Carolina coasts, finally establishing a base somewhere on the North Carolina coast from where he extorted tolls from shipping passing through the Pamlico Sound, having agreed to share the spoils with the North Carolina colony's governor, Charles Eden. At the request of the Carolina planters, the governor of Virginia sent a British naval force to stop Teach, who was killed in the ensuing fight. Teach was notorious, but survives in American folklore more legend than substance.
Warm wishes to Lisa.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 6, 2007 4:21:58 GMT -6
FYI, Hunk, Blackbeard's legend and folklore are mostly dead on but I would actually say that the legend rolls in further when he's considered more bloodthirsty. As I said, he used a lot of psychology before his death by freaking the hell out of his robbery victims. He often threatened death but the most he would do was burn ships and maroon the crew if he was pushed too far. Blackbeard would have been getting more fights if he had started killing numerous sums of people who would have surrendered their goods to any one, let alone the Terrible Edward Teache with his fire blazing head of hair! Just in case you research him, always know that legends of his size, his drinking, his smoking of things that ought not to be smoked, his physical power, his fire power and intelligence are not quite the stuff of legend in the least. Maynard almost found out the hard way what happens when you dance with Teache (or if he makes you dance, bang!bang!). Frequently when greater warriors pop up I continually hear the word "legend" popping up, and it does rather disturb me since legend is something that can make people disbelieve in things that they themselves cannot accomplish. For instance my father can weigh roughly 100 pounds at his prime, which means he'll lose faith in larger statured men such as Blackbeard and study more on other pirates who seem "realer" to him, I for one never get hard on any one's size, I hold little people in high regard as well. Bonnie and Clyde and their gang sound like they were amzing athletes and trigger people for their sizes (Clyde is 140 and stands 5'7" and he's one of the bigger and stronger of the group,if you can believe that). Once again criminals are wasting their potential all over the place, in a perfect world I'd see Al Capone playing some good baseball with Ruth rather than smashing some one's head in with a bat. Its disturbing to see athletes like Capone and Dilinger go to waste when they would have made excellent athletes. So watch out a little when you de-mystify, it is something that can bite back real hard when people are not taken seriously or motivated to their fullest potential.
With that said, please ye forgive the Strange One for wandering so far off topic.
Strange One
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 6, 2007 6:58:14 GMT -6
Fred, great to have you back. I was just about to get the 'Without A Trace' team to start searching for you. Warm wishes to Lisa. Many, many thanks. And I have not forgotten about "the challenge." I will get to it fairly soon. It's just that your work is so extraordinarily good that I must take special care in my responses. I hope all is well. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 7, 2007 19:41:44 GMT -6
It's just a shame that the Worthless Webmistress hasn't gotten around to posting your wonderful Feedback Forum discussions.
I have a huge and wonderful project I want to get online first; then I will work on the FF -- promise!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 7, 2007 19:53:30 GMT -6
Yeah, well, it's a shame that Fatuous Fred hasn't had the time to continue them.
Der Weasel
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 8, 2007 4:12:17 GMT -6
Goddess, why do you want to get Chuck online? Personally I don't recall him being THAT big.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 8, 2007 23:42:58 GMT -6
;D ;D ;D
We both listened to the Welsh National Anthem yesterday!
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 9, 2007 4:25:35 GMT -6
Cymru am Byth, Goddess vach! But how did you sneak into a Welsh male voice choir? On second thoughts, spare me the bite of the green eyed monster. We'll keep a welcome...........
Hunk
|
|