|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 14, 2013 14:35:29 GMT -6
It's not about you.
Nobody made the assumption that the largest tribe at the LBH was therefore the largest tribe always everywhere. I thought that because we've read - or I have read, possibly in Connell or Stewart - that when these tribes gathered, the Cheyenne - the smallest - were in the lead with the Oglala - their big buds and language integrators - next to them, then everyone else, and the Hunkpapas in the rear, because they were the largest band to protect all from pursuit.
It may be that what we read is wrong, or read it wrong, but the assumption was not based on demographics at the LBH. It may only have referenced the northern tribes, or it may be just bogus, but it was not based upon the LBH per se.
If you've been on the other board, you can hardly portray yourself as an innocent to the Custerphile defense squad. There is no equivalent faction for Benteen.
The argument is about the gossamer that statistics/science give numbers dubiously obtained. When you have first person accounts by reliable people - even with hyperbole and exaggeration for cya purposes - there is an obligation to not reference contrary figures as 'data' - which to laymen means 'cold, hard, fact' - until their accuracy and relevance is discovered. Isn't Benteen's account data as well? You call something an account but something else data, which is the layman's choice for most accurate?
By your own admission, there were always people puttering about, neither with well known bands nor at the rez, and it would be difficult to assume an accurate total has ever existed. The numbers are so relatively low that postulated variant explanations could make a large difference. That you've attached them to the LBH battle, and shown they fall within reasonable parameters of variation, would seem to justify their existence and use. It requires, though, that the data be accepted as fact. I contend that it cannot, but is just a reasonable set of assumptions.
And because - as we saw with 'archaeology' and 'science' - the plantlife will feel that civil/military census of populations decades after and before an event of current interest can grant truth to numbers participating that coincide by chance as well as correlation. Might be true; might not. At best, as with everything, it only gives evidence that may not be in conflict with scenarios previously offered, or later.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on May 14, 2013 16:44:42 GMT -6
DC,
there is an obligation to not reference contrary figures as 'data' - which to laymen means 'cold, hard, fact'
I know a few layman, mostly old retired firemen, and if I suggested to them that "data" meant "cold, hard fact" they'd wonder what the hell I'd been smoking. They grew up on the concept of "lies, damn lies and statistics." Over they're lives they've been fed body counts, inflation rates, unemployment numbers, political poles and even election results, all described to them as "data" at one time or another, by one newscaster or another, one politician or another. And the one thing they know to a man is that when it comes to data some of it's good and some of it's bad. In fact, when they hear someone say "and I've got the data to prove it" their bullshit antennas start to quiver.
If there's anybody reading or writing on this board that's dumb enough to believe anything called "data" is ipso facto "cold, hard fact fact" please have them step forward and I'll gladly apologize for this rant.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 14, 2013 17:55:40 GMT -6
I should have said 'public' rather than layman.
In the media, tv, radio or print, whenever you note someone using the word, it's usually "the data supports it" followed by the furrowed brow nod. And because daily polls are now passing as news, when called into question, spokesmen say 'the data supports' or doesn't. "Data" is used because the first reaction is that it's fact, objective fact derived by some objective process.
Con jobs like Newsmax start a lot of their stories on gold, stocks, horse hockey with 'data.' There's a reason they do.
Good examples are the pollsters for Romney, pharmaceutical giants assuring the public of a drug's safety, crime statistics being tortured for political advantage, and political statistics being tortured for criminal advantage.
They can say data which translates in the sound byte short attention span to fact of some sort. Among elder college grads, it wouldn't fly, but most people aren't. There's a reason it's used all the time in the lay press.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on May 14, 2013 18:06:57 GMT -6
Probably no greater recent examples of "data" than global climate modelling and CBO estimates in 2009 of the cost of the Affordable Care Act. it's tough being a "public" or a "layman" either one these days. I recently went through my old mom's data on the Easter Bunny and noticed it was largely contrived. My, and how I loved that woman.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 14, 2013 18:46:46 GMT -6
While I don't agree politically on those two issues, I agree with you that "data" isn't questioned enough and used as a club by near everyone. It has more force than "opinion", "account", or "handy amount I made up based loosely on dubious accounts unverified."
While I myself am convinced of global warming and all that attends it, when the recent Co2 revelation appeared - it is claimed we are at the highest level since trilobites ran the soup kitchens - they said the source was on Moana Lau (?), a volcano in Hawaii. Which pumps out sulphur and co2, and hello? I don't doubt there's more to it, but that article was less than terrifying. Sorta like standing on the beach in Indonesia on Boxing Day 2004 and concluding the sea was rising as the tsunami hit. Well, yes, in a way, here, but........
That they get away with it is the fault of the media, who should always be 'fact checkers' but in reality go with the easy, popular story line that flatters advertisers or a large demographic. "Reporter" and perhaps "journalist" are words voided if there's an adjective applied to them. You can't be a conservative or liberal reporter. You're a reporter, or you are not. But we won't pay for that.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on May 14, 2013 18:59:53 GMT -6
[Directed more to the general audience here]: I have the impression I still underestimate how focused you guys are on the LBH, and nothing but the LBH. And see everything else through this lens, to the point of total distortion in some cases. DC thought the Hunkpapa were the most numerous Lakota division. Fred thought the Hunkpapa were the most numerous Lakota division. How about the others? I thought the same as DC and Fred, don't know how many others thought this. Not that it matters one bit 137 years after the fact.Could you explain to me how you formed that opinion? Sure. I can count tepee's. A) "Most/all Lakota were at the LBH, therefore the Hunkpapa must have been the most numerous"? No. Now you're getting presumptuous to the point of total distortion of our views.B) "All Lakota/Indians are basically behaving the same, so if the Hunkpapa were the most numerous at the LBH, they had to be the most numerous overall"? No. Now you're getting presumptuous to the point of total distortion of our views.C variant one) "Looking at the wider context can not help the understanding of what occurred at the LBH. Rather to the contrary, if it yields information apparently contradicting what we know from the study of the battle itself, it must be false and has to be rejected" No. Now you're getting presumptuous to the point of total distortion of our views. It would depend entirely on what "wider context" you're referring to?C variant two) "I'm not interested in anything but the narrowest context of the LBH" No. Now you're getting presumptuous to the point of total distortion of our views. Well at least mine anyway, in this and the one's above where "our" could easily be replaced with 'yours'. Something Else? Yup. As I said. I can count tepee's.My mental frame of reference might be so far detached from the perceived reality here on the ground, that I might argue mostly against a wall. We've all been there done that. You're holding your own so I don't see you doing that yet. Or worse, incite vicious opposition, solely designed to undermine my credibility as opposed to engage in constructive argument, because I had stepped over a red line in this Custer Cluster vs. Benteenista trench warfare I wasn't even aware of. So I might as well stop my efforts. Now why would you want to do that? It's apparent that your idealism is much sought after otherwise the melt down/shut down process would have happened already. Besides, if nothing else we're entertained. Don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 14, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -6
Everything I have ever read tells me the Hunkpapa were the most numerous. I assume "everything that I ever read regarding the LBH? ;D I'm obviously aware that you have other things to do at the moment than dissecting every sentence posted here. No need to apologize. It's more of a disappointment, that even someone like you that have assembled such a vast knowledge of all things LBH, and had a substantial section of your book devoted to the Indians, apparently have some basic misconceptions regarding said Indians. And this leads to the question I asked in the last post: What else do I take for granted, that I cannot do here? No point in building elaborate arguments, if the fundamentals are hanging in the air. Ummh, all of them? All that deal with the Lakota, at least. Bray, Gray, the older population estimates, Indian agent reports, Historic census numbers, today's populations numbers of Standing Rock vs Rosebud or Pine Ridge ... off the top of my head. From one of my last posts: Let's look at the difference for the tribal divisions between the 1890s census data and the military counts in 1876/77 (from Gray, slight deviations to my "Population" post as I found a few small errors): ............. Census . Surrendered .. At Agency .. Difference Brule......... 5260 ...... 865 ......... 4387 ....... 8 Oglala........ 4500 ..... 1320 ......... 2336 ...... 844 Miniconjou.... 1330 ..... 1299 .......... 346 ..... -315 Two Kettle..... 970 ...... 240 .......... 840 ..... -110 Sans Arc ...... 770 ...... 913 .......... 170 ..... -313 Blackfoot ..... 760 ...... 237 .......... 645 ..... -122 Hunkpapa ..... 1740 ..... 1121 .......... 333 ...... 286 Total ....... 15330 ..... 5995 ......... 9057 ...... 278 Still in Canada: likely 300-400, mostly Hunkpapa
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 14, 2013 19:29:06 GMT -6
Besides, if nothing else we're entertained. Don't you think? Hey, that's certainly an improvement over "bored to death" as per your last judgment ;D And DC apparently welcomes the opportunity to flex his rhetorical muscles here, so that makes at least two.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 14, 2013 19:29:44 GMT -6
Oh that's awfully relieving. So it's for the greater goal, to keep Clair et al. in check? Can anyone explain to me what is so incredibly dangerous in the idea that there might, might have been a whole lot less Indians at the LBH than commonly assumed here. What happens it Benteen would have been too high by a factor of two? What would happen if there would only have been 1000 warriors engaged in the fighting in total? And a number in the low hundreds in addition to that with the families? The march order was a tradition, really nothing fancy. Similar to the imagination of the Iroquois federation as a big longhouse, with the different tribes territories representing certain features of it. The Cheyennes were the guests in the Lakota "camp circle", so they get the first position as a place of honor (and the least dust). There was a traditional/mythological reason why the Hunkpapa get the rearguard position, but I don't remember what exactly it was. Any traditional reasons for the march order could hardy have much to to with objective military deliberations, as any congregation of a large portion of the Lakota tribes was untouchable by their tribal enemies due to the numbers disparity. No? The very treatment I just got here seems to point to the contrary. Strange. An officer doing a guesstimate under difficult conditions is considered reliable. Another officer, doing an actual, deliberate count, under much less stressful conditions is not producing data, he is ... enlighten me please? In my naivety I assumed this to be indeed as close to "cold hard data" as we will ever get in the treatment of the subject. Of course it is data. But it will have, in principle, a much worse accuracy than an actual count. The Crazy Horse surrender count enumerated 899 persons. They were counted. There might have been an error here or there, mostly with the names, but unlikely to alter the number more than in the last digit. Benteen was in as good a position as one can have for estimating Indian warrior numbers in a battle, but do you seriously propose that his "900" was as accurate, or more accurate than the "899" of the CH surrender count? See, this is what I totally don't get. You are totally focused on semantics, and the only reason for this could be that you are more concerned with the image this discussion creates, than with the actual substance of it. I am a non-native speaker, FFS, do you seriously think I'm using such nuances on purpose, with a specific intent? ? I have problems enough getting the substance across, it seems Please stop projection from your habits onto other people. This is a false math. If the total numbers are low, total variations will be low. Relative variation will be comparable, under comparable circumstances. Your whole counterargument boils down to "because we don't know everything absolutely precise, we can now nothing at all, and are therefore free to speculate as much as we like" Two counts, two different methods, 10 years apart, virtually the same result. A result in agreement with yet more, older data. For the bazillionth time: Where is the data that supports your speculations? You are absolutely confident in your opinion, yet cannot back them up with meaningful quantifiable data. It's not enough to simply argue: Indians moved around, sometimes, so counts cannot be correct. You need to show that enough Indians that it actually matters for the discussion moved around at the times of the counts, and were not included in the counts. Show us specifically who these guys were, give us an idea over the numbers you are talking about, support your hypothesis with more than just rhetoric. It's very easy to use superior debate techniques to sow doubt, even regarding watertight science. That you can sow doubt over this less-than-watertight not-even-science should be no surprise. But unless you hold yourself to those same standards you demand from others, it's intellectually dishonest. So what? I don't care. Why do you care what your despised "plantlife" has as an opinion? Shouldn't you be above that?
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on May 14, 2013 19:35:58 GMT -6
Besides, if nothing else we're entertained. Don't you think? Hey, that's certainly an improvement over "bored to death" as per your last judgment ;D And DC apparently welcomes the opportunity to flex his rhetorical muscles here, so that makes at least two. Well someone has to appreciate what your saying/doing. Took a while, some are dense, some denser and then there's me. I'm just old and my mind farts to much. As for DC. I'd have to agree with everything he's said so far.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 14, 2013 20:46:06 GMT -6
1. Claire puts himself in check by his own posts. 2. There is nothing dangerous about the idea that there may have been less Indians at the LBHA, if logic dictates. I suspect between 2k and 3k 'warriors' plus olde men, kids, and women. That's not a huge variation and melds with with near all accounts' parameters.
3. Your explanation for the march order is ours, except that we read it was specifically because the Hunkpapa were the largest and strongest band. Indians did not have military deliberations, they didn't work like that. They had warriors, we had soldiers. Big dif.
4. Oh, come on.
5. A competent and successful officer doing count estimates under pressure - his job and a task he has mastered in war for life/death reasons - is superior to a newbie being assigned to count lodge circles. Supposedly, he got to 1500 and admits to guesstimating the other 300. So much for 'count.' It was a reasonable guesstimate. It was a year later, and most circles were long dissolved.
There is no hard, cold data. That's my point.
6. "But it will have, in principle, a much worse accuracy than an actual count." There was no actual count of lodges at LBH.
7. I don't doubt in any huge way the count at CH's surrender. I find it only minimally tangential in estimating the count at the LBH. There is no connection to Benteen's estimate.
8. "See, this is what I totally don't get." Look....
There are those who continually say the Cooke note says "Come quick." It says "Be quick." People say it means the same thing. It does not, and they know it. That's proven by the insistent use of 'come'. If it meant the same thing, they'd use 'be.' They know it doesn't, and want people to think Benteen was told to come to Custer. He was not.
When people use 'data' it's a form of terminology inflation. Data is affiliated with fact and science. I fully realize it can be garbage. But it's a proactive choice to use it.
9. "This is a false math....." It's not math at all.
10. "Two counts, two different methods, 10 years apart, virtually the same result. A result in agreement with yet more, older data." Maybe. I don't think any population, mostly at war interspersed with starvation weeks and with a low birth rate, is likely to be that close. I'd believe it if the results were less after ten years. It might be true, I doubt it. I believe the later count more, but not the earlier one.
11. I have no data to support my disbelief of yours beyond the highly dubious sources that provided yours.
We agree that there were numerous bands wandering around. I don't believe there was EVER a total count. How could there have been? THere was zero ability to do so.
12. It has nothing to do with debate tech. It has to do with what you call data - which is technically true - and its accuracy. I cannot grant it. We have numerous examples of their dubious accuracy or their desire for it. They wanted numbers they could use.
13. I don't necessarily believe you're German or a stats enthusiast. I've said before that I don't think there are more than 10 of us between the two boards, but some have numerous UserID's.
Referencing 'plantlife' is no worse than referencing 'the masses,' or hoi polloi.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 15, 2013 2:11:22 GMT -6
There are those who continually say the Cooke note says "Come quick." It says "Be quick." People say it means the same thing. It does not, and they know it. That's proven by the insistent use of 'come'. If it meant the same thing, they'd use 'be.' They know it doesn't, and want people to think Benteen was told to come to Custer. He was not. Time out This hoary old perennial has all the attributes of the common daisy. Ya just cannot get rid of it.Well that is until DC himself came up with the counter measure in that he described the message as an "exhortation". Now back to counting moccasins
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 15, 2013 8:08:49 GMT -6
I found the part in SOTMS last night where the tribes traveling order was chatted up. Contrary to my assumption after 29 years that it was a general reference to how things went, it does indeed seem to be ad hoc because the Cheyennes had been hurt by Reynolds and Crook earlier, so they were in the lead, and the Hunkpapas - the largest band with that group - took the stern. I was wrong that there was a standard travel order, and this one instance may never have been repeated. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty certain this was where it went into my hard drive beneath the pituitary and can only be removed by slaps upside the head.
So. My seemingly baseless assumption that the Hunkpapa were larger than the Brule is not true, in general, but just that particular grouping, pretty much as fuchs said. Apologies to all.
While that example fails miserably, my contention about the rest stands.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 15, 2013 9:06:21 GMT -6
My seemingly baseless assumption that the Hunkpapa were larger than the Brule is not true, in general, but just that particular grouping, pretty much as fuchs said. Well... don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I thought the Hunkpapa were the biggest tribe, period, just like you. The only saving grace with me, however, is that I do not believe I stated so in Participants. So I will go with Fuchs' numbers, as well. For the record then, the Hunkpapa, while not the largest band, overall, were the largest band at the LBH. Also, the marching order varied and often did... that much I knew! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on May 15, 2013 9:28:15 GMT -6
Let's say for example that game was found and the decision made to move South along the LBH. I doubt that the entire assemblage would make a U turn, but, more likely, they would simply reverse the march order with the Hunkpapas in the lead and the Cheyenne(s?) bringing up the rear.
Is plural Cheyenne still Cheyenne or Cheyennes?
|
|