Indian Testimony

[joewiggs]

*I have often wondered why it is often said that "Indian testimony" is wothless in the field of study regarding the battle of the Little Big Horn, particularily when "white" testimony is so contradictory as to be impossible to follow logically. Most historians and authors appear to be guilty of personal bias either for Custer or against him. Col. Graham himself once stated about Indian Testimony, "no two of them tell the same story." Personally i find that an apt description of the Reno Inquiry.

[cinnamon]

problem of the indian testimony is not about the indians themselves, but about the difficulty to translate their testimony - and sometimes to have an honest translator.

[whitebull]

You are 100% correct. Honest and competent translators are the answers. At least the Indians have an excuse with a different language and all.

[joewiggs]

Amazingly there are a few who insist that all Indian testimony be disregarded. Isn't it amazing that the actual eye witnesses of the battle are considered by some to be worthless as sources of information?

Ironically, these same individuals believe the "white" witnesses of the R.C. O. I. to be sacrosanct sources of information although no two testimonies were the same!

[cinnamon]

it is true that some of the indians lied, purposedly, as the one saying "sitting bull had 5 horses shot under him at lbh". Some cause of fear, some for pride, some cause of bad translation. Much factors must be considered in indians witness, not last, and I would say FIRST OF ALL, the different way they have to see and explain things. But the majority of it, are really without price to the knowledge of the battle.

[crazycanuck]

Indian testimony was not taken seriously(more today though), because they were considered inferior, with the whites holding an attitude toward them, what do they know ? Because Custer represented the superior race and was the loser, whites were generally to proud, embarrassed and humiliated and were seeking revenge(Wounded Knee), to listen to the Indians version of the fight. Custers defeat during America's confident Gilded Age , along with there attitude of Manifest Destiny made it a hard time to take a defeat from so called savages let alone listen to there witnesses. It was a stunning loss to America confidence, somewhat like 9/11, where so called backwards Medieval Radical Terrorists or Hostiles secured a victory(using our technogy.. planes) like Sitting Bull did at LBH(using our technology..Winchesters). An analogy could be made, with the so called inferior league and team ,The American Football League New York Jets, when they defeated the so called superior National Football League team, 17 point favorite, Baltimore Colts, in Super Bowl 111, in 1969. Jet quarterback Joe Namath predicted a win(nobody believed him... somebody on the opposition should of listened) . Sitting Bull had his prediction as well with his vision of soldiers falling into his camp(Custer would of laughed at that, like the NFL laughed at Namath before the game). Like the NFL 's Colts coming into the The Super Bowl panic flat because they thought they were superior so did Custer enter confidently the LBH(The seventh can handle anything). Anyways the bottom line is there is always two sides to a story and people should listen critically. The Colts didn't listen nor did Custer and even today the Indians stories seem dubious to most, but should they be, anymore than the deceptive stories at RCOI ? No they should not. So respect your opponent, and in case , any of us think we are superior, ditch that attitude, and listen to the Indian story. They were the survivors and seen what happened and some Indians knew the truth but which ones ? Sort it out.The truth will set us free.

[joewiggs]

There is a lot of truth and validity to both of your posts! As you have pointed out, whenever "humans" are involved in the re-telling of an event, a thousand factors come to play that tend to distort truth. The bottom line, as you pointed out, is there is much factual information to be squeezed out of the cloth as well.

[whitebull]

Dec 20, 2010 3:22:56 GMT -5 cinnamon said:

it is true that some of the indians lied, purposedly, as the one saying "sitting bull had 5 horses shot under him at lbh". Some cause of fear, some for pride, some cause of bad translation. Much factors must be considered in indians witness, not last, and I would say FIRST OF ALL, the different way they have to see and explain things. But the majority of it, are really without price to the knowledge of the battle.

I agree 100% with you buddy. To the victor goes the spoils but, if you got to be careful not anger the party you whipped in a fight, specially if your side is out numbered!