|
Post by markland on Apr 9, 2010 11:04:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 9, 2010 12:15:45 GMT -6
This is garbage. World class, letter sweater garbage of the first water. If THIS is anyone's idea of an accurate recounting of what is known, distinguished from what is cherry picked surmise for contemporary needs, they ought to be drummed out of high school. A detailed mental replay of Sitting Bull's thoughts and dreams, apparently the 'soldiers falling into camp' motif that appeared to knowledge when? Through what source? And stated as fact........ Sitting Bull gathered a huge assemblage with a disproportionate number of warriors for peace talks with the Army? Again: when did that tale first appear? From what coldly objective source? Why would anyone believe that? Sitting Bull: a combination of Ghandi and, well, just a far sighted statesman. You bet. He wanted peace, this man who in old age enjoyed drawing bloody memories of his own slaughters. No unicorns, rainbows, or children holding hands with their white counterparts. Dismembered Crow, rather. "Terry, it seems clear, expected and wanted Custer to attack if he found a fresh Indian trail." Yes, it does seem clear, requiring no interpretation or, actually, any word so delicate as 'seem.' Terry said, in writing, that Custer was free to do as he thought best as the commander on the ground and he had too much faith in Custer to restrict him beyond what were pointedly called 'instructions' rather than 'orders', and these instructions accepted both Custer's traditional MO and the fact that nobody could know what lay up the Rosebud or over on the LBH. I'll let the resident historians of Custer in the CW, one of whom appears on this board, tear apart that summation of the cavalry battle at Gettysburg. Stuart's forces had been pointlessly exhausted, and the rebel 6-7k available outnumbered the Union's well fed and rested 5k, which was supported by its excellent artillery while the rebels worried greatly about their own. I wrote about it here... www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout/92.asp...in reviewing another book, but others have demolished it far better. He also takes Taylor's long after the fact revelation that Reno was drunk, and that with his digit damp to the thermals to ascertain the position he should support for most popularity. That Reno, when known drunk, was belligerent and violent isn't allowed to affect the proposed negative effect it somehow had that day. "Something about the way he said it - a sloppy slurring...." caused Taylor to look at his commander who had just yelled "charge!" and we're to believe that neither Reno nor his adjutant were moving, much less charging, but drinking, and that Taylor was both close enough and immobile enough himself to see the color of the liquid. Stated as unquestioned fact. Philbrick blames this for Reno not pressing the attack, although by even the most flattering times granted to Custer, Reno could have run back and forth through the village if the Indians were to allow it before Custer would be able to participate. He had to stop. We don't know Custer held a council on Calhoun Hill, we don't know which wound of Custer's came first, we can't know TWC killed him, we don't know anything, and we don't know E company was "north" of the peak of LSH, which Philbrick seems to suggest. Come on, people.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 9, 2010 20:54:24 GMT -6
Sitting Bull gathered a huge assemblage with a disproportionate number of warriors for peace talks with the Army? I do find it rather hard to believe Philbrick's statement that Sitting Bull told White Bull to hold off, in case the soldiers just wanted to talk, since they were charging the village and shooting. Quite true, though strangely people have been debated for years whether or not Custer disobeyed his orders. It seems perfectly obvious that he did not, but perhaps that debate is what Philbrick was addressing. Reno may have been somewhat impaired, but I doubt that is was by alcohol. Something certainly went wrong with him, but I don't think he was drunk. I have enjoyed Philbrick's other books, but he admits in the sidebar that LBH is new territory for him. So far it doesn't look promising, but I think I will wait to read the book before reviewing it.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2010 9:42:35 GMT -6
Way to many assumptions by Philbrick and his Taylor account is certainly one-sided. The SB account of a large number of warriors to talk peace seems preposterous at best. The only source of SB wanting to talk "peace" is by One Bull who stated his uncle told him to go out and talk to the soldiers but thought better of it when the soldiers fired.
This may not be the most accourate book . . . but would have to read it before being certain.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 12, 2010 11:03:03 GMT -6
No. You really don't need to read it at all.
How the hell does American Heritage look in the mirror after publishing dreck like this? There is nothing dishonorable about presenting conflicting tales and then showing why you tend towards one rather than another, but both Donovan and Philbrick and so many others state dubious tales, appearing late, as fact.
This is the entry line: "Fate brought Custer and Sitting Bull together one bloody June evening at the Little Bighorn—and marked the end of the Wild West." No, not evening, and the Wild West ended in 1876? Really? The OK Corral, Hickock's murder, Apache Wars, Wounded Knee, Nez Perce, range wars, gold rushes - not to mention that rest of the Sioux War - that followed were as afternoon teas at Newport? WTF???!!!! In American Heritage, not Teen Time Tummy Trouble Magazine For Idiot Trophy Wives, Wannabe Trophy Wives, and Daughters of the Confederacy With Daddy Issues, for heaven's sake.
It's why Connell, who never claimed historian status whatever, does a much better job than these guys. He just presents the stories, well told.
If this stuff is continually tolerated when not actually celebrated (by those who haven't read it either), surrender all pretense of regard for 'truth', fact, and history. This is disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 22, 2010 10:18:53 GMT -6
This may not be the most accourate book . . . but would have to read it before being certain. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 22, 2010 17:07:45 GMT -6
No.
But perhaps the publisher should read it before publicizing it. Or, is their summation correct? Either way, disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 23, 2010 23:36:19 GMT -6
You've made it clear in the past that you don't bother to do research--I guess you must just be psychic. So of course you can review a book without reading it--my mistake, I'd forgotten your special powers.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 25, 2010 12:15:39 GMT -6
It's not true I don't do any research, which is why I never made that falsehood "clear", but I do feel the need to point out how little research others do, in kindest light, or how much they lie by leaving out equally plausible stories and/or evidence, as in Philbrook.
My comments were based on the provided url of his writings, anyway, so in this case they were based on having read the material. Would that I had not, but what can ya do?
I have, though, stated baldly that you don't need to read Custer/LBH books to know what will be said or to learn anything, and most suppositions hover around being 80% correct. Most are garbage and few have any value at all. WCF is probably the last valuable one. SF isn't really about the battle.
What burns me is that people who know - or want to know - the authors will surrender all critical ability and just shill for them. It's been a few years since I read Donovan's book and listed, by page, errors and absurdities. Nobody has corrected me or even argued the points. That's primarily because few have actually read the book whatsoever. If you're upset I review books which I have never read, at least I announce that fact up front. Odd you aren't equally mad at those who defend the books who clearly have never read them either, including some quoted on fly leafs, and who pretend otherwise.
If I'm in error about the hypothesis of not needing to read Custer books mostly by military enthusiasts, gun nuts, or Custerphiles, I've enough up on this site and others that should have attracted easy attack. Nope. Nobody.
I also read elsewhere, M, that you somehow think it a crushing point that after demanding that others who slander Reno for his charge/rout out of the river bottom show how it could be done better - or shut up about it - I, myself, do not. That's the logic that fouled you up through adjusted excuses for mis-identifying masts.
In short, I'm not among those accusing a soldier or officer of incompetence/cowardice/"losing it" or being drunk. I have no zero standing to do so, not being a vet, much less a combat vet. In that regard, I'm like many here, although there are some who pretend to experiences not theirs.
I hold that those who raise this issue would only have a point if it could be done better, by Reno or anyone, given what he could reasonably know at the time. If those who accuse him of incompetence, temporary or chronic, cannot show that it could indeed have been done, where do they get off damning him or, almost worse, exhibiting a cowardly compassion that allows his damnation with an 'excuse' (drunk) without having the stones to call him out? If the casualty rate wouldn't be significantly lower by some other method, what did he do wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 25, 2010 23:08:08 GMT -6
What did Reno do wrong: Retreated helter-skelter with no organization and without making sure his orders were understood; issued contradictory and confusing orders, and panicked, rather than acting as a steadying influence. I actually doubt that he was drunk, and am not accusing him of that. Nor do I think he was a coward. As I've said many times before, he had a perfectly fine record up until that one very bad day.
I don't buy your contention that it's not okay to criticize a brevetted officer just because he held that distinction. The purpose of this board is to discuss LBH, and in doing so, there is bound to be a certain amount of criticism of various people's actions. And I especially don't buy it in light of the fact that you felt free to call a brevetted officer a rapist and a thug. That double standard won't fly.
If nobody but combat vets have a right to discuss combat, then half the people on this board, including you, me, and Diane, don't have the right to discuss this battle. If I'm reading this right, your contention is that anyone who hasn't been in combat has no right to criticize or comment on anything that happens in combat. If that's the case, we'd better close up shop right now.
If somebody tells me they have read a book, I tend to believe them. I see no reason to think that people who say they have read Donovan are lying. If I'm understanding this, you are saying that anyone who has read the book and doesn't agree with your assessment of it must not have read it, because no rational person could possibly disagree with you.
Reviewing books that the reviewer has not read is generally not well thought of in the world at large.
You appear to be doing your best to stifle any discussion here that differs in any way from your opinions, and in the nastiest possible way, as well. As benteen pointed out, you have no respect for the opinions of others. You are the absolute personification of an internet troll.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 26, 2010 8:08:35 GMT -6
1. "What did Reno do wrong: Retreated helter-skelter with no organization and without making sure his orders were understood; issued contradictory and confusing orders, and panicked, rather than acting as a steadying influence."
AZ has pointed out that a prolonged charge on horseback becomes shapeless and disorganized by its nature. Both Ryan and others state that the orders were given, and most mounted at order. What contradictory orders? What confusing orders? There's apparently always a certain amount of confusion in combat.
There's contradictory opinion about whether he panicked, and he led the move uphill to where unknown numbers of enemy might be.
In any case, what were the reasonable options that would have resulted in better results? You say he panicked. Prove it. Otherwise, content yourself with listing the contradictory opinions of those there, as a historian would and Donovan does not.
2. "I don't buy your contention that it's not okay to criticize a brevetted officer just because he held that distinction."
Another fake issue. I never contended that or even mentioned brevet as a condition for criticism, and in any case, it's perfectly fine to criticize soldiers's actions so long as you have standing to do so. Those who've never been in combat have no standing to criticize the specific actions of those who have, especially when it somehow gets to character.
3. "And I especially don't buy it in light of the fact that you felt free to call a brevetted officer a rapist and a thug. That double standard won't fly."
As is quite obvious, it isn't a double standard unless Keogh raped in battle. In any case, the evidence against Keogh's off duty supposed standards was provided by others.
4. "If nobody but combat vets have a right to discuss combat, then half the people on this board, including you, me, and Diane, don't have the right to discuss this battle. If I'm reading this right, your contention is that anyone who hasn't been in combat has no right to criticize or comment on anything that happens in combat. If that's the case, we'd better close up shop right now."
Everybody has the right to discuss combat. Although, far, far less than half here are combat vets, and nobody but combat vets have the right to suggest cowardice or failure to perform under fire in other soldiers, since those who aren't combat vets would have zero understanding of what it's like and therefore no standing to do so. That's different than quoting the opinions of those who actually were there for the incidents in question. Cherry picking these quotes to allow the conclusion there was only one opinion is lying.
5. "If somebody tells me they have read a book, I tend to believe them." Okay. "I see no reason to think that people who say they have read Donovan are lying." How about their inability to reference the numerous inaccuracies or answer any questions that arise in even a quick read? Or that under query they later admit they've never read it after defending it?
6. "If I'm understanding this, you are saying that anyone who has read the book and doesn't agree with your assessment of it must not have read it, because no rational person could possibly disagree with you."
Not at all. I'm saying they had opportunity over the last few years to defend against my own and others' attacks upon it, but somehow did or could not. No rational person could deny the contradictions and errors in the book, and even given opportunity and page number, did not. For example, you did not.
7. "Reviewing books that the reviewer has not read is generally not well thought of in the world at large."
Really? Then why is it so common?
In any case, it's only in Custerland that I claim the tiresome effort of reading what others have long said previously and often much better is not necessary. There is, after all, no new evidence, only variations of previously contested emphasis.
My rather obvious point is that in targeted genres like Custerland most reviewers really aren't, but mere publicity shills, often in reciprocation for plugs for their own crappy work. But it's very common. And they absolutely deserve to get torched when caught.
For all this, how often, if at all, have my reviews proven to be inaccurate? You have several examples of my reviews up. Where are the errors?
8. "You appear to be doing your best to stifle any discussion here that differs in any way from your opinions, and in the nastiest possible way, as well. As benteen pointed out, you have no respect for the opinions of others. You are the absolute personification of an internet troll."
I have high regard for AZ and Markland (excepting his baseless defense of Donovan's unread book, his affection for a pro football team that boards with their mothers, and stated affection for the Festival of Blue Ice each week....) and Reece and a few others, some no longer with us. I have absolutely no regard for some. Trolls don't leave phone and email, website or address as I do.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 26, 2010 11:15:12 GMT -6
The following was posted on another board by someone who is still registered as a member here: "I've been watching the sad demise of what I tend to think of these days as the darkcloud board, without posting there for maybe a year or so." A troll is somebody who does what you do--tries to cause as much trouble and dissension as possible, walks all over other people, and is rude. David Cornut is another example of a troll. Your name and address have nothing to do with it. It's your behavior we are talking about. People don't bother to reply to your nitpicking details and narrow definitions after maybe the 43rd attack by you because some of them may have lives outside the internet. I, for example, am about to sort my junk mail, which will probably be at least equally entertaining as putting up with your blather.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 26, 2010 12:07:32 GMT -6
If it weren't for Dark Cloud, these boards would be fizzling out. As it is, we have the highest visitation numbers ever, and you are more than welcome to compare those numbers to your favorite LBH board.
Dark Cloud is the only one who has been keeping these topics going since Gordie died. I am grateful that he is willing to take the time and make the effort to post here.
Speaking of trolls, Melani, look in the mirror. You constantly promote another board and take every opportunity to start an argument with Dark Cloud, neither of which is appreciated by me.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 26, 2010 13:57:24 GMT -6
I'm not promoting it, simply quoting it--and by the way, it's not the one you are thinking of, but a new one. The poster in question is one of your members, who has given up posting here. I wasn't necessarily trying to start an argument, but I will say that I am offended by people who insist that something they haven't read must be garbage. Maybe it is garbage, but I think I will read the book before reaching any conclusions.
The problem, of course, is that if I reach the conclusion that the book is not garbage, or even not totally garbage, if I say that here I can look forward to being insulted and called a liar. That is why people give up posting here, and why darkcloud is "keeping it going." Only people who ask innocuous questions, discuss innocuous subjects, or agree with dc are left unmolested. See his welcome to a new member who posted something he didn’t like, and the member’s response:
“Darkcloud unlike yourself I try to be respectful to others opinions.”
You need to look at quality as well as numbers. I can think of at least nine very knowledgeable people who have given up on this site, who had once been frequent posters. There are even more who may not be in the same category as researchers, but who have quit as a result of dc’s attitude.
Everybody doesn’t have to be an expert, but everyone should at least be treated with courtesy. I will apologize for my “you must be psychic” comment when dc apologizes to me and everybody else he has insulted.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 26, 2010 16:10:01 GMT -6
Just nonsense, M.
I provided quotes, page numbers, errors, and nobody has argued them, including you. They sulk. I keep offering up chances to prove me wrong on this issue, and you refuse to grasp them. Cannot make it easier for you.
If I'm not wrong, I've nothing to apologize for. What have I stated that is incorrect about these books I have not read? You'd think there'd be SOMEthing. But just about nobody else has read them either. They might claim it, might even own it, but nothing in their postings suggests the remotest familiarity beyond index glance, if that.
Don't pretend new User ID's are necessarily new people. It's the same olde group. That's why quotes from the anonymous aren't all that impressive.
Since this thread is about Philbrick's book, and his short piece Markland provided, what are you actually contesting? There's no deception in announcing a review of an unread book, and whatever shame exists on the topic should adhere to how unnecessary it was to get the gist and appraise the quality of the work. The Civil War historian whose name I forget who posts on these boards agreed with me whole-heartedly after he read one book I'd not read but reviewed at length on my site.
After reading "Fate brought Custer and Sitting Bull together one bloody June evening at the Little Bighorn—and marked the end of the Wild West," which one - me, or the publisher, or the author (who either agrees or didn't read the stuff sent out for his approval), or the dust bunny under yesterday's bourbon glass - has a better grasp of the LBH?
"On one bloody Tasmanian evening Hitler and Beyonce were brought together by Fate and marked the end of the Mexican War/Bronze Age/Post Expressionistic Painting!" Okay, too much. This, then: "Fate brought Wellington and Napoleon together one bloody..." - wait, have to look it up... - "evening in 1815 and marked the end of violence in Europe!" Rather good, that. Just as accurate.
Any word from the Keepers of Keogh's Hallowed Record? Has Doyle stopped running yet since bolting the official LBHA board (where I existed and exist not and so, you know, why would he flee unless.....)? There are more reasons for shame about fighting for the Vatican, it turns out and finally admitted, than the Foreign Legion, but Keogh may have done both and then for the Federals here. All before becoming One of Us.
Above, I listed points from your post you refuse to answer. That tells everything, right there.
|
|