|
Post by clw on Aug 1, 2008 21:01:56 GMT -6
You know who would have had some great insights on all this? Bradley. How I wish he'd lived to write about it in his later years.
Have more thoughts, but smashed a finger and typing's not much fun. For instance -- E's thoughts on Bill Cody were very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Aug 2, 2008 0:03:40 GMT -6
I think that those who have suggested that the NAs learned more from the battle are correct. I say this although I have not read much about NA thoughts/quotes after the battle and I am merely applying logic.
It seems to me that NA society contained elements of a heroic warrior culture with concepts such as counting coup and bravery runs. Surely any rational thought about the subject would have told them that fighting the US Army was a grim dirty killing business and the old way of life had to change.
With respect to the US Army I guess they already had some concept of moving towards the empty battlefields of today's warfare after the last year or so of entrenched battles in the ACW. It seems that Benteen realised rather quicker than Custer that this now applied to fighting NAs as well.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 2, 2008 9:23:27 GMT -6
The thread question is what did the participants and their peers learn. The response has been, in general, a compendium of what modern folk think they should have learned because it's obvious to us. Or, some of us.
The people of concern to the question learned nothing they didn't already know or suspect. The Army: Don't underestimate the enemy. Check, we knew that. Don't divide forces in their face, in any case. Check, we knew that. Don't attack the unknown. Check, good idea we've known for ages.
Might not hurt if the men were trained to ride and shoot. Ya THINK? We know that.
The Indians: there sure are a lot of white men. Check, we knew that. No matter what, there's always an army against us. Check, we've known that. Also, anyone else noticed there's less bison? Yes, moron, we've noted that since the railroads came through.
There was no such entity as NA's, in that they were at war with each other and always had been. What one tribe endured cannot be assumed to mean they 'learned' (true of any people) because they have institutions and power structures that cannot be threatened without becoming a different type of society altogether. But, even if one tribe had 'learned', it means nothing regarding the other tribes.
If NA's "learned" anything, it somehow went out the window when the moronic and predictable Ghost Dance came along and swept a large percentage of believers into its midst. It's no different than various Great Awakenings or Flaggelants or the like who appear in Christian lands in times of inexplicable defeat or horror. It's no surprise that the Confederacy was in the sweep of one in its last years that had fizzled in the North, where things went pretty well, all in all.
The point being, far from learning squat, most Indians not excluding Sitting Bull leaned towards the bovine, supernatural, and idiotic in their despair. LBH did not inform as to strategy, did not inspire them to learn a bit about their enemy, did not inspire tactics or anything. Instead, they went backwards to bullet proof shirts, raising the dead, a return to ancient (and the violent, stupid, and brutal ways of the - claimed - Alpha male warriors) beliefs in place since before Sumer went to two stories.
Just like quite more modern Christians did so that the otherwise useless and often dangerous clergy types regained a smidge of their ancient, witch doctor power they never deserved.
That isn't learning. In fact, it can be argued the LBH forced regressive thinking on the Sioux and inspired little thought in the Army other than 'let's do what we've always claimed we did. For a change.'
|
|
|
Post by clw on Aug 2, 2008 11:39:06 GMT -6
...I am merely applying logic. It seems to me that NA society contained elements of a heroic warrior culture with concepts such as counting coup and bravery runs. Surely any rational thought about the subject would have told them that fighting the US Army was a grim dirty killing business and the old way of life had to change. Well applied logic, Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 4, 2008 12:15:50 GMT -6
As for the "moronic" Ghost Dance . . . after years of abuse, destruction of their culture, poor conditions on reservations, and lack of advancement promised by the US government a number of Sioux were in desperate condition.
When some people or groups have fallen into despair with no way out, they seek alternatives: drugs, alcohol, religion.
The first two do not help and while religion can give you "strength" it cannot make things change. Unfortunately the Sioux, who were not far removed from the "old ways" reached out to the last bit of hope: religion, with some twisting it into a supernatural means of getting away from the White Man, even "Ghost Shirts" to protect one from bullets.
I can't imagine ever being in a position like that, especially a culture who abhored most everything the White Man represented, yet who conquered them. Can't blame them for seeking a way out . . . it may have been a death wish for some.
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 4, 2008 12:46:22 GMT -6
I don't know if it was so much a way out as a hope. A hope that the Ghost Dance would bring the things promised - the return of the buffalo, the return of their ancestors, the disappearance of the white man. In short, it was the last throw of the dice.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 4, 2008 13:56:08 GMT -6
I'm sure to some it was very spiritually-driven. But to many, I suspect, they simply didn't have anything better to do, and joining such a fraternity was a way of at least being part of something they felt was positive.
I think most knew that it wasn't going to get rid of the waschishu, but it was a dramatic, collective expression of their frustration, in a proud, rather than beaten, way.
These guys aren't primitive idiots...they are just brothers finding expression in their heritage.
Hoka-hey, y'know...
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 4, 2008 14:55:03 GMT -6
As I've said, several times, it was no different than these other Great Awakenings that the supposed and so-called Christian elements supplied to their flocks, and were calls for the return to Olde Ways in hopes of magical intercession. The Indians were only as stupid and desperate as other human beings have been and would be. Nothing more, and nothing less. But it's such a regression there are no examples where it can be viewed as an example of learning. Witch burning, the seemingly mandatory pogrom against any nearby Jews, mass suicide (Jonestown), or the Millerite fizzles, there's a lot in common between elements of mass depression in different societies.
But it doesn't reflect 'learning,' but rather an aversion to change and the future.
I don't think the battle led to any furrowed brow conclusions of merit by either side.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Aug 4, 2008 16:39:11 GMT -6
There are Lakota people who would agree with that analysis, Clair. The Ghost Dance has been explained to me with an interpretation somewhat different than the one we usually read.... "Many did not believe in the power of the Ghost Shirts. The prayers and dances were for the restoration of balance, restoration of natural law, not man's law, least of all white man's law. The more Wakan aspects something can take on, the easier to find acceptance with its message. Christian teachings influenced the movement too and were represented by all doing the same thing, praying for the same thing, with no blood shed, recognition of the singular supreme being as always, but blended into the ndn way.
It was born from a world of total chaos, the herds gone, concentrated on totally unproductive, unprotective land, the old ones, young ones dropping like flies, eating a diet that would later set the whole race into diabetes, totally foreign. The concentration camp. This was the appeal, the search for any and all relief, and when this dance vision was shattered, alcohol saved the day."
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 11, 2008 19:31:52 GMT -6
What did the Russians learn from LBH? They divided their command, launched a 3 prong attack, and now have effectively cut Georgia in half. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 12, 2008 6:35:48 GMT -6
Now lets see if the Georgians will mount an effective guerrilla campaign against the Russian occupiers...
We could see another LBH yet, but by the Russian "cavalry," ala Afghanistan.
We could also see massive genocide and ethnic cleansing on the part of the Russians to get the Georgians out of Ossetia.
Play is not over yet...
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 12, 2008 7:04:47 GMT -6
What was learned?
Might makes right. That doesn't necessary mean might means greatness . . . just aggressive action against "lesser" people usually means their demise.
Truly great countries resolve issues peacefully and diplomatically. Of course, when someone knocks you down you get up and knock them down . . . and make sure they don't get up.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 12, 2008 7:13:02 GMT -6
I am sure the Russians have better intel. Dividing the command does not effect communications as it did in 1876. I doubt there was only 140 Russians in the any of the 3 prongs.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2008 7:15:30 GMT -6
Russia, having one or two battles in its past, does not look to the United States for military inspiration. Technology, maybe.
One hopes the claims that there are American advisors commanding Georgian troops is false, because Georgia must be in the hands of idiots if they thought they could - or should - attack self governing sections of their nation that WANT to be part of Russia, primarily populated by Russians, thus deflating their claim of dedication to Freedom and Democracy, and doing so with a military utterly unable to stand up to Russia's, providing context and reason for Russia to invade. Now they whine to the United States, who is palpably unable to help militarily, and we bluster on empty.
It's to be hoped we haven't hung them out to dry as we did the Hmong, the Shiites in 1991, various others our beloved Chickenhawks encourage to rise and fight and then routinely desert. If we encouraged this in any way, it will be the worst and most dangerous incompetence inflicted by this administration. There's a trophy for the mantlepiece.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 12, 2008 10:43:30 GMT -6
My sources say that we (Pentagon) were highly pissed that the Georgians did this, and that we tried to stop it, to no avail. We pulled our advisers back (some out) a day before the Georgian army went into their Ossetia province, which was off limits to them.
Their best troops were the ones that we trained, and we had shipped them to Iraq (back now, with Russia's cooperation...we had to clear it with them to fly our fleet of transports into Tiblisi bringing their brigade home). They didn't get back in time to get into action, though.
There will be so many consequences of this show of force (by both sides...Georgian and Russian)...no way to know how it will eventually play out.
Main thing is that the oil is still flowing. <g>
Clair
|
|