The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-30-2003, 01:02 PM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default A different analysis of Gen. Custer, the Indians, The Little Big Horn - 1876

http://www.lucidcafe.com/gallery/means2.html

Russell Means on George Armstrong Custer

General Custer, known among the Cheyenne and Lakota as "One Who Attacks the Defenseless" was known to be so cowardly that no one wanted the dishonor of killing him. Among the Indian Peoples, we believe men and women who do evil should be allowed to live, so they have to deal with their demons and tortured spirits.

Custer had attacked defenseless Indian encampments at the Washita and other areas. He thought he was doing the same at the Little Bighorn.

According to white man archaeologists, Custer charged a Cheyenne and Lakota encampment purported to house 7,000 Indians with his measly Battalion of 250 poorly trained Irish and Polish immigrants.

Now, I am going to expose the big lie.. According to American mythology, Americans are super heroes who always overcome overwhelming odds. If they fail to do so, like at Custer or the Alamo, they fight heroically until the super leader is killed dramatically as the last man standing. And the only reason they lost is because of super overwhelming odds. Now, lets examine 7,000 Indians encamped along the river the Lakota call the Greasy Grass.

Assuming, we savage Indians at least believed in zero population growth, we must assume 1,000 men, 1,000 women, 2,000 children and 3,000 elders. Based on the white man's assumption that our lives were arduous, 1,000 of our elders have already died which leaves us with an encampment of at least 2,500 tee pees. Assuming that primitive savages do not have the where with all to eat three meals a day, let us estimate two meals a day per family and because we believe in eating a family meal as a unit this would require 2,000 cooking fires per day. Remember, this is the Northern Plains, which begs the question "where do we get the wood?"
With 2,000 camping fires per day, one would be able to see the smoke from the fires 50 miles away, especially from the high ground that surrounds the valley of the Little Bighorn. Also, at that time in our history, we prided ourselves with the ownership of horses. The more horses one owned the more honorable and wealthy one was considered. At that time, our mature and older men possessed herds of horses.

It would be safe to conservatively estimate that we would have at the very least 12 horses per family, based on 7 people per family. Each grown male, 13 and older, would possess a minimum of four horses. Let us say for the seven member family unit; we had a horse for each elder, one to drag the belongings with an adult female, a horse for the children and a horse for the adult male. That equates to six horses, so at minimum subsistence level, the Lakota encampment would have had approximately 6,000 horses. This herd of 6,000 horses, which were well trained, were allowed to roam free. Due to prevailing winds, they most likely grazed to the southeast of the encampment directly in the path of Custer.

Have you ever seen 1,000 horses? Or 600 horses? Or even 100 horses? That is a massive amount of animals. The ridiculousness of attempting on the Northern Plains in 1876 to prepare a minimum of 14,000 meals per day is beyond sane comprehension. The very idea that Custer would charge through nearly 6,000 horses is ludicrous. The Crow Indians have told me there were only 200-220 lodges, which means there may have been as much as 1,500 Indian people there. Speaking logistically, that number would mean about 250 warriors were available.
Now we are talking with sanity. It is my experience, as a member of the American Indian Movement, every time the white man is going to fight Indian people, he adds a zero and sometimes two zeros before the decimal point!

In brief, what actually happened is the Cheyenne went out and captured Custer's supply wagons while our men and women were charging at Custer as he was approaching. When the Polish and Irish recruits saw 500 to 600 elders, women and men charging, they turned tail and actually began committing suicide. No one wanted to touch Custer, so some women went out to chase him away. As he was riding away, he looked back and saw Indians, not knowing if they were men or women pursuing him, Custer shot himself in the head. This is the story I heard from my Grandmother as her Grandmother was there.

It is an accepted fact among Indian people, whose ancestors told them these truths, Custer did in fact kill himself.

I challenge each of you to re-think the logistics of this 1876 Indian encampment and draw your own obvious conclusion.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-30-2003, 01:40 PM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default WOW!!!...Dude.

I hope Old Russel doesn't decide to give his variation of how my alma mater ("The A-Troop") fought at LZ-Xray in Vietnam, or even when The First Combat Unit into Bagdad. I don't think I (any other "Garry Owen Boy" also) could handle such blashemy and nonsense very well.

Neil
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-30-2003, 05:49 PM
usmcsgt65 usmcsgt65 is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 286
Default

A good blend of fact and fiction. The leadership of the Sioux and Cheyenne stated that they did not know it was Custer until it was souvenir collecting time. Black Elk even said in his book the tribes did not known it was him. But once they did. The women did a number on George and Tom. They hated Tom Custer more than George. Custer cut his hair to regulation length and left the dogs in the main camp with Gen. Terry. Remember, Custer had 256 troops, while Reno, Benteen had the rest. His command was split three ways. Most the warriors were racing down the valley toward Reno. It was the group lead by Gaul, who were the furthest away that ran into Custer. The US Army report on Custer, and the Crow scouts, stated Custer was shot in the chest first, at the river. As the troopers attempted to get away, Custer carried to the top of the hill (Custer Hill). The second shot was to the head. By the powder burns and size of the wound, the Army reported it was caused by Custer or another soldier. The Discovery Channel did a recent program on Custer in their Unsolved History (Alamo, OK Corral, Custer).
__________________
Semper Fi
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-30-2003, 10:35 PM
TheOldSarge TheOldSarge is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 113
Default

Poor Russel needs to read Son of the Morning Star ... if he wants to get to know Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

The Old Sarge
__________________
Freedom is never free. It requires payment ... frequently in blood.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:16 AM
Seascamp Seascamp is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,754
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

I have two books dedicated to the Custer battle. On called ?The Last 25 Years? was published in 1900. This book really bad mouths the Sioux, Lakota, etc. and paints a glowing picture of Custer and the last stand. There is probably a grain or so of truth here and there but for the most part consists of political journalism, wishful thinking, distortions and pop rhetoric of the time. It would seem that Means and 50?s Hollywood read this book and went no further. The second book is ?Son of the Morning Star? and this is more of an analytical narrative that is supported by interviews of Native American descendents, evidence found on the actual battlefield and is probably much closer to the truth. Further battlefield archaeological work has acted to correct some of the omissions and assumptions made in this particular book but not detract from the findings. Folks will argue forever over the course of the battle and what actually happened to whom, but I enjoyed learning about Custer the man and come to recognize that perhaps his vein-glorious disposition got him in an imposable situation. I hope to go to the park one day, check it out, and maybe draw my own conclusions. I think this is a fascinating topic because at the time all the Native American battle participants scattered, most to Canada, and no journalist or researcher in his right mind was going to publish anything they had to say, regardless, as this went against the political flow. Some credible researchers insist that there was a massive US Army cover up that acted to suppress anything that acted against the Custer image. This is possible I suppose but I don?t know enough to make a reasonable comment one way or another. Good choice of book Old Sarge.

Scamp
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:51 AM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default "They Died with Their Boots On"..Errol Flynn...etc.

I was watching this movie the other day for the umpteenth time. Always liked Errol Flynn as an actor. Some of my favorites are "Captain Blood", "Dawn Patrol", "Charge of the Light Brigade",
"Adventures of Robin Hood", Sea Hawk", Dodge City", "Virginia City", and "Dive Bomber". I have read a lot about his Nazi spying ( the evidence is compelling ) and immoral lifestyle, but he could act. Anyway, how much or how little of the info in the movie is accurate ? Did Custer really go from 2nd Lt. to General by accident ? It looks like he was actually a Captain first. Did he really like onions ? Did he turn down an offer to put his name on a railway venture for $ 10,000 ? I see where he was last in his class at West Point. I also see where his first cavalry exploits against Jeb Stuart with the Michigan cavalry are sometimes denigrated because of the condition Stuart's cavalry was in after almost 2+ years of war. I also see where Custer is noted for his recklessness and causing lots of casualties. Did he ever get wounded ? If not, it is surprising. Contrast that with Gen. N .B Forrest....What other anecdotes from the movie are true or false ? As I said, I always liked Errol Flynn as an actor, but outside of that he is a real disgrace. Are there any other movies about Custer that are historically accurate ? "Little Big Man" with Dustin Hoffman comes to mind. I haven't seen it in a long time.
Another movie I watch whenever it is on is "The Alamo" with John Wayne. From what I have found on the internet it seems 80% + of this movie is fiction...Oh well !!!

Larry
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:06 AM
Keith_Hixson's Avatar
Keith_Hixson Keith_Hixson is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Washington, the state
Posts: 5,022
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Post Everyone has a spin!

Certainly Custer wasn't the greatest calvary leader in the West. He had his share of faults, but he treated the Native American like most of the U.S., with contempt. We had manifest destiny and the indigenous peoples were in the way. But, history tells us (Civil War History) that Custer was very brave in combat! This account of suicide would be totally out of the character of the man whether you like him or not. So, one glaring error in the article means that most of it is fiction. I tried to figure out his math and it doesn't quite add up. Just another twist on history of the politically correct. I personally think Custer was a pompous jerk but this take doesn't seem to be at all historically correct.

Keith
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:51 AM
TheOldSarge TheOldSarge is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 113
Default

Another thing Means gets wrong, at least according to everything I've read, is that the Indians despised Custer. They actually held him in rather high regard. Not because he was such a great humanitarian, obviously, but because they thought he was "touched" by the Great Spirit. It was the Indians themselves that gave him the name "Son of the Morning Star." They had other names for him, most reflecting their grudging respect.

Some of the Indian participants in the Little Bighorn and its aftermath of dismemberment and mutilation testified later that Custer was not mutilated ... out of respect. The women only used their sewing awls to puncture his ear drums ... believing it would make him "hear" better in the after-life. Very appropriate when examined in light of his blatant disregard for treaties, promises, and warnings from some of the Indians themselves.

Sure, he reflected the government's own policies in dealing with the Indians... reservation or extermination. His overall commander was Phil Sheridan, the guy that coined the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." With influence like that, and a gigantic ego, is it any wonder Custer was, and remains, so controversial?

The book, Son of the Morning Star, is well worth the price and
the read. By no means am I saying it is infallible. Just that it all adds up ... better than anything else I've found.

On the subject of a cover up after the battle .... not saying there WAS one ...

It was in the Army's and the government's best interest to glorify Custer and vilify the Indians after the battle. Custer's actions reflected on everybody, professionally and personally ... AND their policies. To have done anything else would have been to admit drastic errors.

The Old Sarge

PS for Scamp .... go. I've been twice and its worth the effort and modest expense. (Its sort of out-of-the-way.) When I stand on the hills where Custer's and Reno's men fought and died, along with the Indians, I get a feeling that's impossible to describe ... maybe "fellowship"?
__________________
Freedom is never free. It requires payment ... frequently in blood.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-01-2003, 09:14 AM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default You got that right,...Keith.

Colonel Custer (after demotion went back to Civil War rank of General after death) most certainly: "Wasn't the greatest Cavalry Leader in The West". Some say that The Colonel (or whatever) was more interested in glory or show-biz for political purposes and advancement, than anything else.

Regardless, that any political fool would lead one of the best Light Horse Cavalry Troops or Horse Soldiers in The World (2nd only to The Commanches) into the open sans cover and/or an untenable position for even grunts or infantry being vastly outnumbered,...was a sin.

That so many good men died merely because of A Blond Goldylock's political ambitions (arrogance also),...was also a sin.
So then, I guess that it's fair saying regarding: "Political ambitions", that no matter what time in history,...things really never change. No price is too big to pay for gaining high office.

Neil
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:08 PM
usmcsgt65 usmcsgt65 is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 286
Default

My view of political ambition, he was attempting to redeem himself with the Army after his court martial. Sure he took a newspaper man on the mission, but if anybody buys into the Custer for president. They are off the mark. The Democratic Nominating Connvention was held two days before the battle. His name never was put forward. It was to save rank (he was a Lt.Col.), and to have his name put on the colonel list.
__________________
Semper Fi
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Indians sure have changed 39mto39g General Posts 19 12-13-2006 09:18 AM
custer MissleMonkey28 Civil War 18 03-31-2004 05:15 AM
Who Do The Indians Think They are? MM38084 General Posts 10 10-13-2003 07:28 AM
IT Sweatshops Breaking Indians MORTARDUDE General Posts 0 07-11-2003 11:51 AM
June 25, 1876 82Rigger Vietnam 0 06-25-2002 06:28 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.