|
Post by shan on May 14, 2010 15:26:51 GMT -6
darkcloud,
I'm not into defending postions or theories, and in that spirit I'll conceded that words are not as neutral as I stated, however having said that, in some ways you helped to prove my point when you say,
"Defeat? Fiasco? Or heroic Last Stand? That sets the tone for all accompanying 'evidence.' Actually, they're rather instructions on how information, true or not, is be received by the reader. It's why conz and others affect the British inclination to elevate terminology and call soldiers Soldiers and Indians Warriors. It's a message that he's praising them and so not to be condemned when he slanders individuals like Reno and Benteen because of that respect, you see. Of course, it's also a way to use this battle to praise himself, which is his entire goal, and at the expense of those who are bemedalled combat vets, which he is not. "
Putting Conz and his opinions to one side for a moment, if take just one word, say Fiasco, yes it does give us a tone, and yes it does contain information, but as you know, it can, and often is a jumping off point for people to agree or disagree with it's use in the particular topic being discussed. It's not the word volley we should blame, but rather how the speaker or the writer cares to use it along side another series of words in order to prove their point.
But look, as I back away a little from my statement about words being neutral, it's just occurred to me that in many ways we are all victims of them. The way we first choose, and then use them tends to betray us, there is really nowhere to hide, but for better or worse they are all we've got.
Finally, I'm in total agreement about the translators. By and large they could just about get by with the basics, and as a result, they may well have felt obliged to add fillers, and even toss in their own opinions where nessacary. For the most part I'd imagine they did this in order to make it look as if they were better at it than they were, but let's not blame all of them, I doubt very much if they deliberatley mis-lead their masters, they were after all just men trying to earn a buck. That dosen't mean to say we can't use some of the Indian testimony, after all there were a couple of men who went to great pains to try and learn the language, and more importantly actually listen to what was being said.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 14, 2010 21:48:36 GMT -6
Kuster seems sure that officers said Reno was drunk in the valley. I never said that. Go back and re-read what I said.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 15, 2010 1:46:31 GMT -6
I think you are crediting Benteen and Reno with too great a degree of hostility. I'm not really aware of Custer and Reno not getting along, though Reno generally wasn't all that popular--I'm not aware of them getting along anyway at all, good or bad. At the RCOI, Reno was asked if he had any confidence in Gen. Custer. After twice failing to answer the question, he was pressed by the recorder and on the third try he finally said, " I had known Gen. Custer a long time and I had no confidence in his ability as a soldier. I had known him all through the war." So if that is how he felt about Gen. Custer, how great was their friendship? We have another clue too. Gen. Custer had loads of photos taken of him and his friends including the scouts and his brother as well as many of the 7th officers. They are seen lounging in camp together and in front of his home. However, how often do you see Reno with them? Seems that Reno was not part of Custer's inner circle? Thus, they may not have openly express hatred to each other, but I have to wonder how well they got along or whether they barely tolerated eachother. This is what I mean. I don't think they got along.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 15, 2010 9:41:05 GMT -6
Shan,
Where we differ is that it doesn't strike me that any worthwhile goal is just perpetual discussion. Or, rather, the point of a discussion is to arrive at an end point of conversion or disagreement. We agree how words are important, but your examples rather prove my point. If a 'volley' can be fired by one person or 100 - and it can - then how crucial are statements about volleys being fired and which person meant which definition? In some cases, it's obvious, in others not. We don't know, can't know, and any prolonged discussion doesn't edify. Worse, nobody wants to nail down definitions so that, at least, the issue is before any discussion where it is a factor.
It doesn't matter if translators deliberately or by mistake misled. Further, it DOES mean we can't really trust any of it, because what you're saying is mathematically some must be competent, say this percentage, and while we can't know who falls into what percentage just believe that percentage of translated stuff of the whole. A drop of urine in a case of wine makes it dangerous to absorb. A drop of wine in a case of urine makes it.......what? Hands? Hands?
In reply 27, this thread, among other amusements, The Boy Who Would Be Custer said:
There are very good reasons for calling both of them weasels. At least two separate officers reported that Reno was drinking in the valley and at the Defense site.
Since the subject of drinking would be of no interest unless the drinker might be impaired, which is to say drunk, I say again you seem to think Reno was drunk. In the valley. On the hill. On the way up, he took a swill. In 134 years, nobody doubts he drank - most did in those days - but few thought him impaired or drunk.
Excluding Reno, who admitted it easily, who? Of those, which officers saw him drinking in the valley and said so?
The world bows to your vast personal research showing that Reno and Custer didn't get along, and the brilliance of finding no photos where they were together. When did Reno join the regiment?
People have to get along with those they don't like in any number of professional associations. Reno, Benteen, and Custer got along, but didn't like each other. The two former said as much often enough, and nothing contradicts it. Godfrey didn't like Custer either, but got along.
As to your personal standing to call two combat vets 'weasels', what are they? You must have been in a lot of combat to have honed your ability to be better than they and so damn them.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 15, 2010 13:28:14 GMT -6
Gen K although we are on opposite sides as to Custer,you believing he was a great officer, my believing he was anything but one, I have always held your knowledge of this battle in high regard,and also your having been a combat officer,I have the highest respect for your opinions on military matters.That you look to defend Custer at every turn,is fine with me,heck I look to bash him at every turn. However I must take exception to your comments concerning Benteen (and Reno for that matter). Benteen yes was a surly individual probably not very friendly,and yes he did hate the sight of Custer.But by all accounts Benteen was a brave and fine officer (as was Reno). There are those survivors of the battle that attest they owe their lives to his courage and leadership under fire.To infer that this man would in any way commit an act that could cause the deaths of his fellow soldiers or even put them at risk ,simply because he hated Custer, is wrong and I believe out of order.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 15, 2010 16:34:15 GMT -6
Gen K although we are on opposite sides as to Custer,you believing he was a great officer, my believing he was anything but one, I have always held your knowledge of this battle in high regard,and also your having been a combat officer,I have the highest respect for your opinions on military matters.That you look to defend Custer at every turn,is fine with me,heck I look to bash him at every turn. However I must take exception to your comments concerning Benteen (and Reno for that matter). Benteen yes was a surly individual probably not very friendly,and yes he did hate the sight of Custer.But by all accounts Benteen was a brave and fine officer (as was Reno). There are those survivors of the battle that attest they owe their lives to his courage and leadership under fire.To infer that this man would in any way commit an act that could cause the deaths of his fellow soldiers or even put them at risk ,simply because he hated Custer, is wrong and I believe out of order. Whatever we plant in our subconscious mind through repetition and emotion will one day become a reality! That they felt the way they did about him, is it any wonder why they under performed? Actions are not always driven by our conscious decisions. We sometimes do things for reasons we are scarcely aware of.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 15, 2010 19:17:01 GMT -6
Gen K although we are on opposite sides as to Custer,you believing he was a great officer, my believing he was anything but one, I have always held your knowledge of this battle in high regard,and also your having been a combat officer,I have the highest respect for your opinions on military matters.That you look to defend Custer at every turn,is fine with me,heck I look to bash him at every turn. However I must take exception to your comments concerning Benteen (and Reno for that matter). Benteen yes was a surly individual probably not very friendly,and yes he did hate the sight of Custer.But by all accounts Benteen was a brave and fine officer (as was Reno). There are those survivors of the battle that attest they owe their lives to his courage and leadership under fire.To infer that this man would in any way commit an act that could cause the deaths of his fellow soldiers or even put them at risk ,simply because he hated Custer, is wrong and I believe out of order. Whatever we plant in our subconscious mind through repetition and emotion will one day become a reality! That they felt the way they did about him, is it any wonder why they under performed? Actions are not always driven by our conscious decisions. We sometimes do things for reasons we are scarcely aware of. Utter BS. Billy
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 16, 2010 9:14:50 GMT -6
Shan I think we can all use things to support a particular theory. It may or may not be evidence but simply consistent with a particular theory. When one makes a statement that it took over 1/2 hour for Benteen to water the horses based upon his research then he should be able to produce whatever he used to form his opinion. Gee wiz AZ. I respect your need for references when discussing this battle, but typically if I think that something is general knowledge like the basic purpose of cavalry or the approximate time that Benteen took, I typically don't feel a need to site references like I would do if writing a paper or book. But I understand your point, and if you allow me time, I will respond with references. K -It would take new findings to make the statement over 1/2 hour to water. All the known sources are equal to or less than 1/2 hour and the 1/2 hour guesstimates are in a range of 20 -30 minutes. Since these minutes seem to matter on whether Benteen dawdled to some then it would be important to provide the source of over 1/2 hour. Since you used it in a statement that indicated Benteen went to slow you should provide your source from someone that was there. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 16, 2010 9:25:05 GMT -6
Whatever we plant in our subconscious mind through repetition and emotion will one day become a reality! That they felt the way they did about him, is it any wonder why they under performed? Actions are not always driven by our conscious decisions. We sometimes do things for reasons we are scarcely aware of. Utter BS. Billy Well said Billy I find this interesting: I Gen. Kuster Junior Member member is offline Joined: Apr 2010Posts: 69 benteen New Member member is offline Joined: Mar 2010Gender: Male Posts: 25 Since the sum total of posts for both is less than 100 and K only joined in this name in April 2010 then the clues are that they are reincarnations of previous posters. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 16, 2010 9:38:23 GMT -6
Melani - before you comment who cares look at what K believes;
"Whatever we plant in our subconscious mind through repetition and emotion will one day become a reality! "
Multiple postings by the same person and then they agree with themselves as different posters is a method to implement their own "reality".
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 16, 2010 10:05:14 GMT -6
.....and it's exactly what Ward Churchill did buttressing his numerous footnotes and, I claim, what Donovan did. Referencing tons of people who all got a tale from one source does not construct a mutually supportive claim.
Also, people who love exclamation points can't help themselves because, as in that idiotic sentence, it's the most compelling part, given there is no logic or support for such a moronic assertion.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 16, 2010 12:14:50 GMT -6
Before some of you buy into any cockamamie conspiracy theory that Benteen and I are somehow related or that I am somehow a reincarnation of previous posters (which I am not), I would ask that you re-read what Benteen's last post said to me:
He said, "To infer that this man would in any way commit an act that could cause the deaths of his fellow soldiers or even put them at risk ,simply because he hated Custer, is wrong and I believe out of order."
This actually shows he disagrees with my position on Benteen, and if there was a conspiracy or something, why would he disagree with me? This was not the first time he has disagreed with me either.
Now I guess that the conspiracy theorists will say that we purposefully disagreed on some points in order to cover our tracks. That logic closely mirrors Richard Mulligan’s portrayal of Custer in "little big man."
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 16, 2010 12:58:36 GMT -6
Whatever we plant in our subconscious mind through repetition and emotion will one day become a reality! That they felt the way they did about him, is it any wonder why they under performed? Actions are not always driven by our conscious decisions. We sometimes do things for reasons we are scarcely aware of. Utter BS. Billy My point is that Benteen's long held contempt for Gen Custer did have an affect on his decision making and his ability to full carry out Custer's orders with the corect sense of urgency. Thus, Benteen's contribution to Custer's death that day was not necessarilly a direct one, but an indirect one. If you don't belive in your leader, you will not carry out orders with a sense of urgency and with enthusiasm, and this could be the difference between life and death.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on May 16, 2010 14:02:00 GMT -6
Quite a few years ago ( I won't reveal how many) in psychology 101, we were taught that there exist a direct correlation between the sub-conscious and the conscious.
If this premise remains true then General Kuster has a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 17, 2010 6:42:20 GMT -6
Before some of you buy into any cockamamie conspiracy theory that Benteen and I are somehow related or that I am somehow a reincarnation of previous posters (which I am not), I would ask that you re-read what Benteen's last post said to me: He said, "To infer that this man would in any way commit an act that could cause the deaths of his fellow soldiers or even put them at risk ,simply because he hated Custer, is wrong and I believe out of order." This actually shows he disagrees with my position on Benteen, and if there was a conspiracy or something, why would he disagree with me? This was not the first time he has disagreed with me either. Now I guess that the conspiracy theorists will say that we purposefully disagreed on some points in order to cover our tracks. That logic closely mirrors Richard Mulligan’s portrayal of Custer in "little big man." Since you have only been here 1 month maybe benteen could explain his post. "I have always held your knowledge of this battle in high regard,and also your having been a combat officer,I have the highest respect for your opinions on military matters."
|
|