So, What Do We Call It, Then?

[Tricia]

All--

It is a recurrent and not altogether incorrect theme in posts when Dark Cloud calls into question the terminology "Indian testimony." But in its stead, what should we call it? It's not quite a branch of "oral tradition," but is it not what today's cops would call an "eyewitness account?" And does the term, "eyewitness account" allow for a certain latitude between the participants--even those who clearly witnessed the same thing--and/or their location upon the field of battle?

And what should be the minimum platform upon which to accept these accounts--two stories in which some semblance of agreement occurs? Three? One? Any?

I am hoping that once we can come to a basic understanding of an acceptable term and its defining limits, we can leave all future harping at bay.

Regards,
Leyton McLean

[Hostler]

Whatever we choose to call it, we are faced with the same problem today that folks in the last three centuries have tried to deal with. Interpretation! Communication is difficult even when everyone is speaking the same language or dialect. Interpreters of Indian accounts of the battle were were notoriously incompetent, as well as in some cases deliberately lying to one side or the other for various reasons. Take Terry's orders to Custer at the Rosebud for example. If you have three white people read and explain those orders, you invariably will get three different views on what they meant. Trying to interpret those orders to Indians shortly after the battle would have been chaos, and the Indians would have sworn all whites had forked tongues. I would just refer to Indian accounts of happenings as exactly that....Indian accounts. A lot of it is unreliable anyway for the reasons stated above....just bad interpretion whether deliberate or not. Now darkcloud is not going to agree with this, but if some wish to call it testifying it doesn't change a thing so no big deal.

[harpskiddie]

Tp paraphrase Popeye: "It is what it is, and that's all what it is."

Indian accounts are no more reliable or unreliable than white accounts, and DC will likely tell us that he never meant to imply otherwise. Actually I think he has already said as much in other posts. The fact that "testimony" has a definite meaning is unarguable. That "sworn testimony" should carry any more weight than any other evidence is up to the jury to decide, and since in this case WE are the jury, that means we get to pick and choose what evidence, testimony or not, we accept.

If all of the testimony at the RCOI must be accepted, just because it was sworn, then there is nothing to argue about, and the only points of conjecture pertain to Custer's action, and even then Benteen must be accepted at face value. Graham was of the opinion that an officer of the Army would never lie under oath, and he accepted the testimony at the RCOI almost without question.

In real life, being a member of the jury, each of us gets to determine how much weight we assign to each piece of evidence we encounter, be it sworn testimony, archaeological findings, maps, photographs, Indian accounts, or reminiscences of survivors and others. Of course, there are problems with Indian accounts, because of the need to have them translated, that jury members do not face when dealing with other accounts.

I have a general rule regarding Indian accounts, and that is I don't like to consider them unless I know when and where the statement was made, to whom it was made, and who translated it. That still does not mean I will accept it as the gospel truth. I always like to have the details confirmed by another source. This is not always possible, as I'm sure most everybody has found in their own researches.

I have the same general rule for all accounts as to comfirmation.

I think DC's argument is really about calling a spade a spade, and following the definition of "testimony" - had an Indian actually testified under oath, he wouldn't quibble about calling it testimony, at least I don't think he would. I'm sure he'll let us all know one way or the other [ and likely chastize me for putting words in his mouth.]

I think "Indian accounts" is perfectly acceptable - it certainly is to me - and if anyone wants to call them evidence, which they certainly are, I can't see a resonable argument agains it.

But that's just me.

Gordie

[Dark Cloud]

Testimony by definition is sworn; "sworn testimony" is needlessly repetitive. Hence, the testicular nature of the event: Romans grabbed themselves to swear to tell the truth in temple or court. It's what mandated the (then) new word, because it was different from a story, and penalties - like being thrown off a cliff - if you lied.

"Indian account" is perfectly acceptable and my preference. There is a significant difference between testimony and third hand with translators and they should not be valued equally. And, yes, Indians are no less honest than anyone else.

[crzhrs]

Actually Popeye said: "I yam what I yam . . ."

Indian Testimony:

Go to THE CUSTER MYTH and read the article about a Lt. "interviewing" Indian participants of the LBH. The Lt. makes it very clear that by the time the interpretation is given to him it would have been impossible to say exactly what the Indians were talking about.

And as many have stated by the time Indians were on reservations they realized it was better to tell the White man what he wanted to hear rather than the truth . . . and the fear of retribution for saying bad things about the soldiers was a factor. So much so that even today elderly descendants of LBH participants are reluctant to say much.

While the Indians offer valuable info . . . much of it needs to be sifted through, cross checked, and then maybe, hopefully, something can be deduced from it.

As for White survivors . . . even worse contradictions came from them but for other reasons.

[Tricia]

So when compared to the magnificent and completely truthful testimony at the RCOI, Indian accounts suddenly come up lacking? You can't escape from the fact Indians were the only folks to witness the "whole Custer thing," so to speak, and I cannot believe that in your black and white world "they should not be treated equally," especially in cases when we find agreement between many stories and, as Gordie correctly notes, certain reliability among some of the participants and their interpreters.

I think motivation needs to be carefully evaluated in either NA or Anglo story; I don't care how many ranks a soldier or survivor has.

True, Indians have tricksters among their lot, White Cow Bull, specifically, but it seems the RCOI had its fair share as well.

[Dark Cloud]

None of that is relevant, McLean, even if true, which is highly doubtful and, in any case, unproven after 127 years. Testimony does not mean "true as God's breath." Or true at all. It just describes the circumstances under which it was obtained.

Nobody is questioning the honesty of Indians vs. anglos. Nobody is saying their accounts are more or less accurate. 90% of Indian accounts (yes: a guess....) are third hand, and they were not subject to followup, and no immediate incarceration and termination of career or life worth living would result if they were caught in a lie.

We rarely have even the accounts of the participant Indians. We only have what we're told are their accounts, seen through translators and transcribers and decades and family and tribal authorities in many cases. Whatever that is ain't testimony, and it's important to use the word correctly, I feel. As you may have noted.

I still think we should have an actual Glossary of Terminology and use it. So we don't ever have to speak of this again. I'm suspicious why that would cause concern or annoyance.

[Tricia]

Then we must notate that when we use "testimony" from the Anglo point of view, we must acknowledge that it is, fraught with peril--no matter the circumstance in which it has been gathered. Consequence--no matter how serious--hasn't exactly been a harbinger of truth, see Lil' Kim, even today. Once again, I think we are forced to question motivation and try to find similarities between the "truths" told by ALL participants. This is where I think Michno has excelled. Though I don't agree lock step with his arguments, he has brought Indian accounts into some semblance of cohesiveness.

This kind of greyness, which seems to surround all Custeriana, makes me skittish when it comes to an end-all and be-all Glossary.

[harpskiddie]

Horse:

I know. That's why I used the word "paraphrase."

A Glossary, while it might make some sense to have one, will become just a list of more points of argument, and a quagmire that none of us will ever get out of.

Who will agree on what "ravine" means, or "coulee," or line, or training or anything else. It remains that a story is a story is a story, and it is up to the individual to determine what weight he will give it as evidence, whether it is testimony or a third hand interpretation of what somebody told somebody else. I think most of us are intelligent enough to do that, without having to agree with one another on what we accept as truth or what we call the story.

I will agree that the term "testimony" does denote that it is evidence that was sworn to in a formal setting. The fact that I called it "sworn testimony" at one point just shows that I am a long-serving senior official in The Department Of Redundancy Department.

Now let us all go ahead and carry on forward to proceed.

Gordie

[Dark Cloud]

It's the lack of desire for specificity that subtracts from any claims of 'trying to figure out what happened.' It's why Gray is hated, because it prevents the sweeping rewrites that people want to apply.

If you cannot call this gaseous and highly suspect specificity of the Indian tales "testimony", it takes away a huge prop of discussion and seriousness. Exactly.

Again, I find it creepy that movies and fiction are entertained as seriously as anything else.

[Tricia]

DC--

I'm afraid your xenophobia is showing ... sigh. As is mine. Your answers above show why there just can't be a version of your hallowed "glossary." You want Sidney or the Bush. The halls of justice are really no more reliable for an examination of the truth than that the 97 year-old Indian trying to remember what happened over fifty years previously and in a different language. One can hope, but never be entirely sure. Fiction has nothing to do with the argument--it's just a crutch you continuously employ when you don't have anything else to contribute. Kinda like your fascination against guys running around in Costume. And it gets boring.

If people at this board want to call Indian accounts "testimony," they won't get a lecture from me. I'm assuming that if you reach this level of study when it comes to LBH, you're well-read enough to know the difference.

[Dark Cloud]

Like books talked about and never actually produced, many things become boring to and from different people, and somehow finding insight and relevance in movies and fiction doesn't compensate. The examples above show conclusively why there needs to be a glossary, because words need to be used correctly and consistently, provided some sort of accuracy is desired. That's true in anything. Trying to nail that stuff down is helpful.

There are no legal degrees of testimony, marriage, or pregnancy. It either is or you are, or it isn't and you ain't.

If I bore you, I bore you. Ignore it.

[AZ Ranger]

The underlying importance to me is whether the interpretor put down exactly what was said which we don't know. Even in courts today we use interpretors but there is also a recording of the proceeding which would allow review if needed. We don't have that with Indian statements.

Testimony is first hand evidence by an individual and without the recording or written statement verified by the individual second hand,hearsay. It does not go to the veracity of the statement only to admissibility as evidence.

AZ Ranger

[crzhrs]

One factor is the difference in language and its use, especially with a non-Western and/or European language/culture.

We have heard terms from the Indians such as "drunk" "suicide" "as long as it takes for a man to eat a meal" . . . all kinds of time frames: seconds, minutes, hours, and so forth.

We know Indians spoke with metaphors . . . so drunk is not drunk as we know it but behaved so irrationally that they must have been drunk . . . suicide did not mean suicide as we know it, but they fought so poorly they threw their lives away, ergo: suicide. And for the time frames forget about seconds, minutes, and hours. Their concept of time is entirely different than Western use.

Again go to THE CUSTER MYTH and read the segment about a Lt. who used an interpreter to discuss the LBH with prominent warriors. His explanation of the interpretation is right on.

[Dark Cloud]

We got into it more here. www.mohicanpress.com/messageboard2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=614

Although the example isn't exact to Sioux, it's similar.

I think it takes a believing mind to assume that translation wasn't an art, not just a skill. Lotta room for interpretation in a simple sentence of one (1) word by our standards in English.