The Little Bighorn (3 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

Interesting, as to what is civilized, I have the same thoughts about the treatment of the Indians by the whites that preceded and followed the atrocities at LBH, which ironically were likely not much worse (certainly on a Bentham scale) than those that would have been committed had Custer's plan worked. Did the US in the 19th Century deserve to be called a civilized nation? Two wrongs do not make a right but the first makes the second more understandable.

As to the morality of conduct, there is and always has been a large difference between what is moral and what is popular.

 

[Louis Badolato]

........................................................................................................

Were the troopers that fell at the little bighorn not human beings? Did they in any way deserve to be hacked to pieces?

Even in war we have rules, and the way an enemy is treated can cause more harm to the victor if he displays little humanity in his victory.

Once the American people learned of the mutilation of the troopers on Custer's Ridge the indians fate was sealed.

I'm sure that atrocities occurred on both sides, but it is the social acceptance of this behavior that separates people into civilized and uncivilized society's.

This fact often makes it difficult for one group to tolerate the existance of the other group until such time as a resonable level of humanity is obtained.

Just my thoughts on Custer's humanity.

John,

I little known fact: it was British and Colonial forces during the French and Indian war who most frequently resorted to scalping, not the Indian forces. In WWII in the Pacific Theatre, it was not uncommon for U.S. Marines to use Japanese Skulls as candle holders and ash trays. In Vietnam, American troops collected ears.

Mutilation and attrocity are common occurrences in war, its the nature of the beast. War strips away the thin veneer of civilization, and frequently reduces the soldiers involved to the most savage common denominator. If you are not going to subscribe to my theory that there are no civilized societies, only civilized individuals, then it is not a good idea to judge socities on the conduct of their soldiers at wartime.

 

[pugio]

The origional bounty put out by the Crown was for heads. Guess walking through deep woods with heads on your belt or sash got to be too cumbersome. Then someone got the bright idea of scalps instead. As for mutilation of bodies, as a Nam combat vet, sometimes highly-charged situations bring out the worst in man. You see a good friend get killed, any dead VC was chopped up so bad, maggots couldnt find a piece big enough to feast on. And ears weren't the only things cut off.......

 

[UKReb]

Oh! Dear

It appears our history discussion on the battle has been dragged back yet again into todays PC world-I'd best pull the plug on this one guys so we can all get back to the normal but dull one line comments and endless polls.

Reb

 

[forlornhoper]

Njja,the troopers killed at the big horn,were from a historical perpective,only there as part of an invasion force,that cannot be denied,the fact that their bodies were mutilated is morally reprehensible,no arguement on that point,but if they were not part of an invasion force they would not have met their demise.The fate of the native americans was sealed long before the big horn.The behaviour of a civilised society,does not include the physical removal or destruction of a minority people who were trying to preserve their way of life and defend their civil rights and lands.If that is not a historical fact then i must have read the wrong history of America,were the native americans not the indigenous people of America and the white europeans not the invaders,iam sure i have read that somewhere or shall we pretend that it was all an old wifes tail and it was the native indian that invaded white european America,when they migrated from Africa.

 

[marco55]

The origional bounty put out by the Crown was for heads. Guess walking through deep woods with heads on your belt or sash got to be too cumbersome. Then someone got the bright idea of scalps instead. As for mutilation of bodies, as a Nam combat vet, sometimes highly-charged situations bring out the worst in man. You see a good friend get killed, any dead VC was chopped up so bad, maggots couldnt find a piece big enough to feast on. And ears weren't the only things cut off.......

I think you said it best.
Mark

 

[jazzeum]

Oh! Dear

It appears our history discussion on the battle has been dragged back yet again into todays PC world-I'd best pull the plug on this one guys so we can all get back to the normal but dull one line comments and endless polls.

Reb

Speaking as a member and not the moderator, I would disagree as there is some interesting discussion as to the definition of what is a "civilized society".

The origional bounty put out by the Crown was for heads. Guess walking through deep woods with heads on your belt or sash got to be too cumbersome. Then someone got the bright idea of scalps instead. As for mutilation of bodies, as a Nam combat vet, sometimes highly-charged situations bring out the worst in man. You see a good friend get killed, any dead VC was chopped up so bad, maggots couldnt find a piece big enough to feast on. And ears weren't the only things cut off.......

I would agree with Andy about highly-charged situations. Not that it's necessarily right but who knows how a person will react in the heat of battle. This, in my opinion, applies to both sides in a war.

 

[forlornhoper]

Uk reb,if you feel that the historical information i have presented is incorrect please feel free to present your version.Political correctness has nothing to do with my presentation of the facts.Historical events and figures will be viewed from many perspectives,but hopefully through the study of history the human race will learn the lessons and not repeat the same mistakes of an earlier age,whats wrong with that?The little big horn was a small part of a more complex us government policy towards the ingidenous people,that is a historical fact and american citizens of the time morally questioned that policy,that is a historical fact too,the Grant administration was tainted at the time for corruption,thats a historical fact.Iam sure as someone who studies military history,you should know,all wars are politically motivated by the political masters of the time,the Grant Administration desired the land already assigned to the native americans and that desire corrupted their humanity,that is a historical fact.The Grant administrations native american policy was the forcible removal and or physical destruction of re calcitrant elements within the natives ,that a historical fact too.I have presented my facts without passion or any PC motives.

 

[maddadicus]

Oh! Dear

It appears our history discussion on the battle has been dragged back yet again into todays PC world-I'd best pull the plug on this one guys so we can all get back to the normal but dull one line comments and endless polls.

Reb

YEH REB, I'm done here. With all the bleeding hearts out there, no wonder real history is no longer taught in our schools. You can't get past what happened so many years ago, without someone today crying foul. When did the word " soldier ",ever become so distasteful for so many. Military history is as much about an individual's soldier duty as much as about any officer personality..You cannot **** the boss without throwing dirt at the the men under them.......Michael

 

[marco55]

Yes,I feel the same way Brad.I know everyone probably thinks that I'm a Custer lover and an indian hater but it's not true.It must have been awful for the indians to see these invaders come and take,and take and take.I think what turns people off about the indians is the tales of torture and mutalation but the indians did that because of their belief of their enemies being able to come after them in the afterlife, not to inflict pain.We of European ancestry tend to overlook what our ancesters did to them because the stories we hear are told from the white man's side.I do think that Custer wasn't the indian hater as portrayed but Gideon is right that he is a symbol of that.I think Sherman,Sheridan and Miles treatment of the indians was much worst.As for attacking villages that was borne out of frustration of not being able to bring the indians to battle as he was too mobile and this was a tactic that had developed in the 1600's.
Mark

 

[forlornhoper]

MADDADICUS,i served my country as a soldier in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards for 14 yrs,and in my opinion a good soldier should question any order /orders he considers to be inappropriate to the rules of engagement.All leaders of soldiers in battle are not neccessarily good leaders,many learn their craft in time but many never ,a good soldier knows when he is being well lead or not.The word "soldier" has not become distasteful,but the actions of many soldiers in history have been deemed distasteful and since this is a historical discussion,facts will be presented that illustrate unpleasant and distasteful information about "FIGURES" or "SOLDIERS" we admire,this doesnt make the contributor "A BLEEDING HEART".Custer the man and the soldier should be studied by history he at least deserves that honour,Custer courts great interest from historians and this thread has re ignited my interest in custer and his life ,so historical discussion has its uses.

 

[marco55]

Whatever your opinion about events in history everyone has to agree that the LBH battle captivates us.
Mark

 

[VanguardFC007]

Whatever your opinion about events in history everyone has to agree that the LBH battle captivates us.
Mark

Agreed, theres something about last stands that triggers the human mind to find them interesting. Whether its Little Big Horn, The Alamo, or going way back, Thermopolaye (butchered that spelling).

 

[eborris]

Yes,I feel the same way Brad.I know everyone probably thinks that I'm a Custer lover and an indian hater but it's not true.It must have been awful for the indians to see these invaders come and take,and take and take.I think what turns people off about the indians is the tales of torture and mutalation but the indians did that because of their belief of their enemies being able to come after them in the afterlife, not to inflict pain.We of European ancestry tend to overlook what our ancesters did to them because the stories we hear are told from the white man's side.I do think that Custer wasn't the indian hater as portrayed but Gideon is right that he is a symbol of that.I think Sherman,Sheridan and Miles treatment of the indians was much worst.As for attacking villages that was borne out of frustration of not being able to bring the indians to battle as he was too mobile and this was a tactic that had developed in the 1600's.
Mark

I believe they tortured their enemies to gain strength from them.

 

[Spitfrnd]

MADDADICUS,i served my country as a soldier in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards for 14 yrs,and in my opinion a good soldier should question any order /orders he considers to be inappropriate to the rules of engagement.All leaders of soldiers in battle are not neccessarily good leaders,many learn their craft in time but many never ,a good soldier knows when he is being well lead or not.The word "soldier" has not become distasteful,but the actions of many soldiers in history have been deemed distasteful and since this is a historical discussion,facts will be presented that illustrate unpleasant and distasteful information about "FIGURES" or "SOLDIERS" we admire,this doesnt make the contributor "A BLEEDING HEART".Custer the man and the soldier should be studied by history he at least deserves that honour,Custer courts great interest from historians and this thread has re ignited my interest in custer and his life ,so historical discussion has its uses.

I served mine too for 6 years during a rather unpopular time to be in our military and I agree with you mate. Michael I am hardly a bleeding heart nor do I think questioning the morality of an order or actions committed under that order in any way is disrespectful to any soldier. Just like the rest of society there are good soldiers and bad soldiers and a person doesn't shed their moral responsibility when they put on a uniform. I also happen to think that you certainly can **** the boss without throwing dirt on the people under him, especially in the military where free choice is much more limited.

Bob, you know I respect your opinions as well as your command of history but to me there is nothing PC about recognizing or examining the appropriateness of an historical act, no matter who the actor. That doesn't mean you can't also appreciate other qualities of the affected parties, just that you may not appreciate certain things that they did. I do agree with Louis that war breeds uncivilized conduct and that it is a challenge to try and maintain what passed for your own civilized vaneer when you are in one. That doesn't make it right when you don't, just more understandable.

 

[Njja]

Interesting, as to what is civilized, I have the same thoughts about the treatment of the Indians by the whites that preceded and followed the atrocities at LBH, which ironically were likely not much worse (certainly on a Bentham scale) than those that would have been committed had Custer's plan worked. Did the US in the 19th Century deserve to be called a civilized nation? Two wrongs do not make a right but the first makes the second more understandable.

As to the morality of conduct, there is and always has been a large difference between what is moral and what is popular.

........................................................................................................

As you say two wrongs do not make a right. Who had the reputation for harsh treatment of captives.......was it the early settlers, or the Indians?

Now I understand many Indians dismembered their prey in the belief that they could not harm them from the afterlife. This does not make the practice any less barbaic! I do not believe the early settlers in America set out to dismember the local indian tribes.

I understand that european diseases ravaged many tribes, this is always a possibility when two different cultures come together.

Any student of history will clearly understand the brutality perpetrated on early settlers at the hands of various indian tribes.

How this can so easily be overlooked today is beyond me.

 

[marco55]

I believe they tortured their enemies to gain strength from them.

Yes that is right but also they would take out parts so they could not see them in the afterlife,or take their heart so they would lack courage,different things like that.
Mark

 

[Combat]

Interesting how bias plays into interpretation of historical events. The Germans are war criminals - and rightly so - for the holocaust. But when Americans or Brits look at their own history it becomes PC to review those events. War being hell and such. The savages better off under the colonial boot. Custer was a person who thought he could obtain glory by killing an entire race of people. My hope is that he had a few moments to reflect upon the wisdom of that objective at the very end. Res ipsa and all that PC jazz.

 

[Njja]

John, If you are not going to subscribe to my theory that there are no civilized societies, only civilized individuals, then it is not a good idea to judge socities on the conduct of their soldiers at wartime.

........................................................................................................

Louis:

I am well aware of all the horors of war, since the begining of time through today. But there is a difference, look at Senator John McCain and what he endured in N. Vietham. Did we keep any Vietcong prisoners in such conditions for 5 or 6 years? I do not recall any.

In the US in WWII we kept prisoners in camps, did we kill people there by the millions?

Here in the US we are closing Gitmo because the same enemies that routinely execute people on TV might be offended if you speak to them in an unkind manor.

Three people were water boarded to save American lives and it caused a major upheaval, I fear our enemies are laughing at us.

I do not condone mistreatment of anyone, nor will I tolerate mistreatment of
my countrymen.

 

[Spitfrnd]

........................................................................................................

...
Any student of history will clearly understand the brutality perpetrated on early settlers at the hands of various indian tribes.

How this can so easily be overlooked today is beyond me.

I don't think any one is overlooking it in this discussion. The fact is that was tribe specific and not infrequently incident driven. Of course that doesn't make it right any more than that brutality justifies the policy of the US in the American West. Of course the European nations had their own history of expansion and less than legitimate conquest but those have been pretty much recognized for what they were. To me there is nothing wrong with taking accountability for our own.