|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 19, 2009 21:46:19 GMT -5
In his day, Custer was a true "celebrity" who was admired by men and women alike. Men for his flamboyant aura of knighthood and women for his apparent "gallant" style of true amour. After the calamity of the battle, Custer's stock began to recede and diminish.
Today, it is fashionable to ridicule the General and harp upon his monumental failure at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Every aspect of his life and career seems to have been relegated to the toilet of life.
Which was he? A "beau geste", or an idiot who tried to take on more than he could chew? He was neither.
What he was is not mysterious. A young man who achieved the heights of success in one of the most horrific wars imaginable, he became an icon of success and unimaginable bravery honored by many.
As the values of society change so did the image of the "Boy General" change. Which was he? Who was he? Who can say? He was unique and ambitious to a fault. He was brave and many were jealous of his warrior's heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by melani on Dec 23, 2009 15:01:03 GMT -5
In Custer's time, soldiers were seen the way pro sports stars are today--something that little boys aspired to. He (and Keogh and probably a lot of others) grew up reading Charles O'Malley, the Irish Dragoon, a rousing tale of the Napoleonic War. There is a Custer family story of Autie, age four, jumping up on a barrel in his father's blacksmith shop and announcing, "My voice is for war!", a quote from a political speech he had heard.
So when he performed bravely in the Civil War, it was just what the public wanted and expected. He and several others were promoted through a bunch of ranks to general because the Army was in dire need of generals and they showed promise and had friends. He was young, good-looking (well, more or less), and had a flamboyant personality, so he played right into the public expectation. And he loved attention.
A comment on his fearlessness, or lack of caution: a few years ago, I worked with a young lady who many people find very annoying. She told me that she has been diagnosed with ADHD. When she is in a hyperactive state, it is virtually impossible to have a conversation with her--she simply can't focus long enough. She has great energy and is always rushing around, and talking rapidly. She is basically a good person, but has a tendency to walk on people's faces without even realizing she has done anything to upset anyone--she just isn't perceptive of other people's needs. All these traits are symptoms of ADHD. Sound like anyone we know? Plus, ADHD tends to run in families. Think about Libbie's accounts of wild romps around the house with the Custer brothers, and their love of practical jokes.
My young friend is now about 27, and has settled down quite a bit, at least partly because of negative reactions to her behavior. Fortunately, she is not a brigadier general.
So I have come to believe that a lot of what Custer did was shaped by the fact that he and his brothers probably all had this condition. When I was a kid and first started studying LBH, I thought he must just have been crazy to go after so many Indians. Since then I have come to realize that he had a bunch of good reasons to think he could succeed, but, with typical lack of caution, had jumped in without sufficient reconnaissance.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 23, 2009 17:59:22 GMT -5
Excellent post! I'm in total agreement. Custer's' spirit and persona did seem to run through the family, to include his father who did not hesitate to speak his mind.
Thank you for joining us Melani, I have long admired your extremely knowledgeable posts and look forward to hearing from you often(I hope! ;D)
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 23, 2009 22:13:20 GMT -5
Actually Melani I preferred your "without proper recognizance" assessment better ;D, I mean it fit perfectly with the diagnosis you gave him. Otherwise I think, as always your observations are quite good.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Mar 13, 2010 17:37:25 GMT -5
This is the first forum where I have felt safe to write. Members of other forums seem to get really upset with each other at times when they happen to disagree. My knowledge about Custer is limited. Some of the categories here are above my head. I would love to learn more about the battle. There does not seem to be anger and hostility on this forum which I appreciate. Can someone explain to me why the name of Custer raises so much hostility with some people?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Mar 13, 2010 18:33:37 GMT -5
in a word, pontification. No one theory of the battle can be 100% right without a time machine.So some folks have they're own ideas about it, consider it fact, and take it personally if someone else disagrees. At least that's how it seems to me. My favorite saying is "If Custer himself came back from the dead to say what really happened, half of the experts would disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Mar 13, 2010 18:42:01 GMT -5
I think it has to do with alot of ego. Some people feel the overpowering need to project a "know it all" attitude. And unfortunately the Man and they Myths surrounding the battle only serves to advance the enduring legend to one so empowered for their own ego's sake. And usually "Their right and your wrong" attitude is carried to the extreme, so much so that nothing sane is left of the discussion. [Mind you, this is just my opinion]  That being said. I think that forums should be a place for people to come and share ideas and thoughts and care about one another. Sure we're all different, we don't always have the same thoughts or ideas. But as long as we are civil to one another, and respectful, there is no reason in the world anyone can't come and post freely. And that to was another of your concerns you expressed in your post. When a person joins, they have to read and agree the rules not just of this forum, but the parent organization, Proboards. I would bet that most people do not read those rules. But every one of those rules has to do with showing respect and civility to others on this board, and I assume on the other boards you mention as well. I have yet to see a forum, where those rules were not posted when a person joined. I don't know why other forums choose to ignore their own rules. But I have no intention of letting that happen here - ever! Civil and respectful disagreement - sure, its bound to happen. It's going to happen. But when it comes to defaming someone, when it comes to harassing someone, when it comes to calling someone an undignified name, rest assured, it will happen only once. The only way that I would consider a pass on it is: if the person who was injured by the remark, foremost and freely, without coercion, pm'd me and advised me differently. Enjoy your time here and please feel free to post what you want, where you want (with the exception of The Journal). If you wish to submit an article to it, just pm me. Thanks P.S. And yes, I do agree with Cutter. Perhaps he said it better than I. Thanks Cutter. |
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Mar 13, 2010 19:07:07 GMT -5
anytime pal.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 13, 2010 19:57:40 GMT -5
That's exactly why I am thankful for the opportunity to post on this forum. Six years ago, I too was new and eager to join in and express my thoughts and feelings. Out of the blue, I found myself on the receiving end of a vicious, personal attack from an individual because I, apparently, said the wrong things. Ready to give up, I eventually met the administrator of this forum who showed me that one could learn much from his fellow and, agree to disagree with dignity.
Stumbling Bear, I assure you that you have found a home here and you will be respected as an individual and the rights therein, regardless of your point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Mar 13, 2010 20:59:05 GMT -5
To be entirely fair, Joe actually didn't "say anything wrong." A biased individual had decided to play hardball with parsed words and phrases of a trivial nature that essentially had nothing to do, nor for that matter, contribute to the conversation. The exception being that it was a blatantly false accusation meant to derail the conversation and defame Joe in the process. This was a job clearly for the administrator of that forum, but he let it go and go and go as Benteen himself would say "ad infinitum". The end result of which now resides only two members of that forum who wish to post anything, and they stand ready to censure anyone who is not of their faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 13, 2010 21:39:04 GMT -5
Thank you Sir!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 13, 2010 21:42:08 GMT -5
in a word, pontification. No one theory of the battle can be 100% right without a time machine.So some folks have they're own ideas about it, consider it fact, and take it personally if someone else disagrees. At least that's how it seems to me. My favorite saying is "If Custer himself came back from the dead to say what really happened, half of the experts would disagree. Cutter, I have never heard it said better. Undoubtedly, at least one half of the experts would tell the General that his explanation of what occurred would not be acceptable; ironic isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Mar 13, 2010 21:51:43 GMT -5
I feel at home already. Thank you Dennis and Cutter for your responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Mar 14, 2010 14:43:27 GMT -5
"Undoubtedly, at least one half of the experts would tell the General that his explanation of what occurred would not be acceptable; ironic isn't it?"
I think it would really tick him off, and he'd be writing many a book to right the wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Mar 14, 2010 16:35:17 GMT -5
I can just hear it now.
[dumbkoph] You mean you didn't go to 3411?
[Custer] Nope. Not to that point your pointing to, we were no where near to it. Why should I go there?
[dumbkoph] So that my time-motion study works, you see it all fits. I have so and so going here and this fits with that and so on and so forth...
[Custer] Hmmm... I see. But what does that have to do with what we did do?
[dumbkoph] Well you did try to attack at Medicine Tail Ford didn't you?
[Custer] We didn't have the time to go there. We were no where near to it. What are you talking about?
The crowd clears and leaves Custer standing alone feeling much as Curley, Martin and Golden felt over the years. "Damn" Custer exclaim's, "damn them all."
|
|
