Who And What Was George Custer?

[LopeHunter]

Where all rights come from. A bunch of dudes sitting around who decide who gets rights and who doesn't.

Might made right for millennia. Brutality was not an invention introduced by the white man. Settlers conquered the tribes they encountered as those tribes had previously conquered anyone that was previously on land they wanted and those peoples likely had conquered others. We are all here because our ancestors out-fought, out-smarted and out-lived others long enough to pass along the genetics. Is nice we today have Robert's Rules of Order, have 911 to call and there are resources to support the weak, old and disabled. That was not what our ancestors faced for much of history including when America was first settled by outsiders in the 1600s. Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas all had conquerers and the vanquished. The process was often brutal with no quarter assured simply due to age, sex or health. To candy coat anything about our past is disingenuous as is the attempt to reframe our past using today's norms. We all have relatives that did heinous things in order for us to be here today. People were wronged. Cheated. Murdered. Accept that then try to live a better life as a way to honor their sacrifices an those wronged.

 

[LopeHunter]

The singer?

And his buddy Groucho Marx.

 

[A Guy Out West]

Yeah, I've got friends that watch those same YouTube channels.

i see the connections you're trying to make here, but if you think criticizing past actions of our country's military makes someone a useful idiot of Marxism... you might think for a minute what it looks like when fear/unwillingness/inability to criticize your own government is a cultural norm, which is the logical extension of what you're advocating for. And really scrutinize that term "useful idiot" while you're at it.

I don’t know anything about you tube. I told you where I got my information.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Take a deep breath and read post #158.

 

[rwc101]

Might made right for millennia. Brutality was not an invention introduced by the white man. Settlers conquered the tribes they encountered as those tribes had previously conquered anyone that was previously on land they wanted and those peoples likely had conquered others. We are all here because our ancestors out-fought, out-smarted and out-lived others long enough to pass along the genetics. Is nice we today have Robert's Rules of Order, have 911 to call and there are resources to support the weak, old and disabled. That was not what our ancestors faced for much of history including when America was first settled by outsiders in the 1600s. Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas all had conquerers and the vanquished. The process was often brutal with no quarter assured simply due to age, sex or health. To candy coat anything about our past is disingenuous as is the attempt to reframe our past using today's norms. We all have relatives that did heinous things in order for us to be here today. People were wronged. Cheated. Murdered. Accept that then try to live a better life as a way to honor their sacrifices an those wronged.

None of this has anything to do with what I posted. For about the fourth time I'll refer someone making the exact same accusations to the Lakota Nation which is filled with detailed accounts of conflict between the Sioux and their neighbors. Brutal stuff. I am well aware of all of this especially having studied history, yet people keep replying that I'm reframing history or assigning guilt. Genocide has a definition. Someone denied that murdering men, women, and children, tearing families apart, forced re-education, killing off food supplies, and cordoning them to desolate patches of unproductive land based on their ethnicity was genocide. I pushed back against that. Denying genocide, not acknowledging it, is reframing history.

 

[Glockster]

None of this has anything to do with what I posted. For about the fourth time I'll refer someone making the exact same accusations to the Lakota Nation which is filled with detailed accounts of conflict between the Sioux and their neighbors. Brutal stuff. I am well aware of all of this especially having studied history, yet people keep replying that I'm reframing history or assigning guilt. Genocide has a definition. Someone denied that murdering men, women, and children, tearing families apart, forced re-education, killing off food supplies, and cordoning them to desolate patches of unproductive land based on their ethnicity was genocide. I pushed back against that. Denying genocide, not acknowledging it, is reframing history.

You can call it whatever you want. Then will you acknowledged that the Souix and larger tribes committed genocide against the smaller tribes originally on the plains.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

You can call it whatever you want. Then will you acknowledged that the Souix and larger tribes committed genocide against the smaller tribes originally on the plains.

Sure they did. Did anyone say they didn’t?

 

[rwc101]

You can call it whatever you want. Then will you acknowledged that the Souix and larger tribes committed genocide against the smaller tribes originally on the plains.

I have no issue calling out the atrocities of the Sioux. Having read my history on the topic, one could split hairs on whether their actions met the definition of genocide since they often integrated defeated tribes into their society which stretches the definition of genocide. Even had a special ceremony for it. Without parsing out those intricacies, not something people seem willing to do on a basic level in this thread, I have no issues calling it genocide. I can actually manage to stay on topic, which is why I am only addressing your question to humor you. Bringing up other conflicts in a thread about Custer posted on the anniversary of the Battle of Little Bighorn is straight up deflection.

 

[rwc101]

By the way, were you referring to the Sioux conflicts with the Arikara, Pawnee, Cree, Sauteurs, Ojibwe, Outaouas, or some other tribe? Or is the focus more on labelling the Sioux "just as bad" rather than addressing a specific event that we can evaluate?

 

[Glockster]

Well thank you for humoring me. The point I was trying to make is those who like to review history through today’s morals and standards ,which happens quite a bit here, fail to acknowledge brutality needed to survive the time period. And often times people only like to highlight the actions of those that settled in America. It doesn’t matter to me if you think the souix or Custer were good or bad. They both where trying to survive the times and do what they thought was best for the nation as they knew it. Nothing more.
The tribes where occupying land and resources that a young country needed to prosper that’s all it boils down to. History is full wars about resources. The American Indian war is nothing special. It’s happened thousands of times. They had something we needed. We took it. We won. They lost.

Unfortunately there are actions taken by both sides that today as a society we frown upon. I will not judge the Souix or any other tribe by today’s standards in the same way that I won’t judge Custer or even John Chivington by today’s standards.

 

[Bullshot]

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

The past few years (decades really) have left me little doubt where in this cycle we are and where in this cycle we are headed.

It’s 5 oclock somewhere, pop open a cold
one. Or go tear down a statue of Custer or something. Whatever floats your boat. Neither will have any more effect on the happenings at Little Big Horn or the direction our society takes from
here than the other. In the meantime, cartels are decapatating their rivals on our border, buildings are collapsing around us, cops are being killed by people who are being killed by people who are being killed by cops, and on and on and on.

Genocide. Genocide. Genocide.

There’s no place
like home... There’s no place
like home.......There’s no place like home...

Dang... still here? Maybe it only works with ruby slippers...

we didn’t start the fire.... it was always burning since the worlds been turning...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Well thank you for humoring me. The point I was trying to make is those who like to review history through today’s morals and standards ,which happens quite a bit here, fail to acknowledge brutality needed to survive the time period. And often times people only like to highlight the actions of those that settled in America. It doesn’t matter to me if you think the souix or Custer were good or bad. They both where trying to survive the times and do what they thought was best for the nation as they knew it. Nothing more.
The tribes where occupying land and resources that a young country needed to prosper that’s all it boils down to. History is full wars about resources. The American Indian war is nothing special. It’s happened thousands of times. They had something we needed. We took it. We won. They lost.

Unfortunately there are actions taken by both sides that today as a society we frown upon. I will not judge the Souix or any other tribe by today’s standards in the same way that I won’t judge Custer or even John Chivington by today’s standards.

Report of the Joint committee on the conduct of the war at the second session Thirty-eighth Congress.

[/URL]

Then let the words of his peers speak for themselves.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This one won't be open forever so let's try and make a discussion of it.

I agree that the 100 million number is pushing it. But being conservative, it's still likely in the neighborhood of 50 million, no?

I also don't think "genocide" is quite the right term. But then, what is instead?

We have to decide where we are counting and what we are counting.

Geography: 0.5-1 million in Canada, 3 to 5 million is about the number of natives in the territory now covered by US. But there were likely about 20 million in Mexico and Central America and another 50 million in South America. No one knows for sure, but these are reasonable good estimates.

Cause of death: Direct warfare? Deaths due to displacement and imprisonment? Deaths due to unintended European disease spread? Deaths due to "intended" disease spread (despite the sensational claims, this is likely by far the smallest of the 4)?

So, when we project deaths we need to say where & how - If you are thinking of the entire western hemisphere numbers that dropped for any cause post-1492 then we are talking 50-75 million probably. If you are thinking the US only by direct warfare you are probably in the few hundred thousand on the high side. US-only deaths of any European-derived cause are probably in the 4-6 million range - (it can be higher than starting population because there are intervening births).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In 1865 a joint committee of congress being 8 congressman, members of both parties stated “…other than by the commission of even worse acts”.

No one is rewriting history, it’s not some socialist snowflake agenda.

Reparations, Land Back, etc are modern, complex political issues. This isn’t a discussion of those, I see nothing wrong with someone saying, those things aren’t practical, reasonable, or ethical. Separate thread, different conversation.

We aren’t normalizing US soldiers taking turns shooting a 3 year old.

We aren’t chocking that up to “old timey values”, they weren’t.

 

[Wildabeest]

The tribes where occupying land and resources that a young country needed to prosper

“Needed” is a bit of a stretch. “Wanted” would be the more appropriate term, IMO.

 

[Schaaf]

Even besides the pointless Indian Wars, he led nearly 300 US Soldiers to their demise because of his arrogance.

 

[shrapnel]

In 1865 a joint committee of congress being 8 congressman, members of both parties stated “…other than by the commission of even worse acts”.

No one is rewriting history, it’s not some socialist snowflake agenda.

Reparations, Land Back, etc are modern, complex political issues. This isn’t a discussion of those, I see nothing wrong with someone saying, those things aren’t practical, reasonable, or ethical. Separate thread, different conversation.

We aren’t normalizing US soldiers taking turns shooting a 3 year old.

We aren’t chocking that up to “old timey values”, they weren’t.

This appears to be a less provocative take on the difference in times of the Indian wars compared to 2021.

I am part Indian and have received payments from the government for the attempt to repair some of the conceived wrong doing by the Federal Government in the 19th Century toward native Americans.

I was not wronged, and don’t feel that is a good use of Federal monies and as such I also feel there has been a push in the 20th century to make some compensation to the Indian tribes for the past injustices. I also believe we need to view history for what is it and not for what it should have been.

The whole point of this thread was to explore a significant American event that included a significant American figure that has been mostly misunderstood due to a single battle and not considering what other accomplishments he had done in his lifetime.

 

[shrapnel]

“Needed” is a bit of a stretch. “Wanted” would be the more appropriate term, IMO.

Needed was in 1876, wanted is 2021.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It is easy after all the mistakes have been made to sit and criticize those mistakes.

You are right, it should be easy to see the mistakes and the cruelty with the clear eyes of hindsight. It costs us nothing to now admit that many wrongs were done. Yet for some strange reason many can't - and instead seem to prefer celebrating a mediocre army officer who at best was an egomaniac and at worst whose hubris over the years cost many Indians (women and children included) and US soldiers their lives unnecessarily. The US is the greatest nation in history - but that is a relative term - we were not always great and we continue to error at times (and to elevate at times). Just like mankind, the US is capable of glory and horror - I am not sure why folks on both sides see the need to only focus on their preferred half of the story.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am surprised a moose picture hasn't been added to this thread yet.

Or cheese, what about the cheese?