|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 27, 2011 10:03:00 GMT -5
The Indians as well as the whites used a term in their sentences that isn't well understood today. That term was "turn", or "turned". For example, "We turned these hills." Or, "I kept firing at them but they never turned their course." I think the latter, more or less helps to explain the former. Martin used the former when he was describing Custer's advance down the right bank, but it isn't paid much attention to, and in fact is totally disregarded because Custer just has to be seen on those hills/bluffs because Reno's men said they saw him there. I find it interesting that a simple word, like this one, which would and rightly should change opinion be totally disregarded in favor of another proposition just because someone who wanted to see their commanding officer for the very last time, tried so desperately to do so and found solace in the fact that they did. They wouldn't after all want those Washita charges that cropped up after the Elliot affair creep into the conversation here, especially since Custer's death may have been caused by such neglect as not caring for Reno's own incontinence in command when Custer should have known better.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 9, 2011 21:22:02 GMT -5
HOKAHE
Come on, lets go!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 9, 2011 21:23:10 GMT -5
Wicasa Wakan
A holy man connected to the great mystery!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Feb 29, 2012 16:21:38 GMT -5
Wipazuke Waste Wi
"Month when Berries are Good"
6/25/76
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 6, 2012 16:33:04 GMT -5
Tipestola - Pointed dwelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 6, 2012 16:04:29 GMT -5
Sitting Bull:
The most precious commodity to the Sioux was the Bison which was also the greatest gift most favored by the "Everywhere Spirit."
Hence the translation - The animal [buffalo/Sitting Bull] having the highest status [as designated by the Everywhere Spirit] resides permanently among them[Sioux].
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on May 12, 2012 19:40:47 GMT -5
An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Sand Creek = The Battle of the Little Big Horn? Who can be the judge?  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 13, 2012 10:00:50 GMT -5
An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Sand Creek = The Battle of the Little Big Horn? Who can be the judge? Well there are ahem... some who would be able to tell you down to the minutest detail when someone took a piss, and whether or not at that exact moment in time, as they were so doing, whether or not such an action through the motion of the stream and exactly how long that would take him to do, whether or not it was his mistake to have taken it at that inopportune time, and all this justly and rightly so figured because of such exact timing so demonstrated that - that particular action, figured by stream theory, proved without any shadow of doubt that those battles were or were not judged with prejudicial bias and without any compassionate hope of ever being discerned any other way. Trying to get at the question you asked though is like asking whether or not there was just one Lone Tepee or two or more. For some the answers aren't a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma, they are quite simply known because of the stream theory proposed above, beyond any shadow of doubt. This in spite, or should I say (spit at) Ray Meketa, Thomas Bookwalter and Henry Wiebert's fine book "The Search For The Lone Tepee", which places added emphasis on the fact that this lone tepee was found by their research to have been the one about 4.5 miles up Reno Creek. Anyone who as never read this book ought to do so, their research methods and techniques tell more than what any other research has ever done on this subject. Yet, time and time again their research efforts are thrown under the bus by self proclaimed wanna-be's as "bunk". This in spit of the fact that Henry Weibert lived in the Reno Creek area all of about 60 years of his life and knew that country like the back of his hand. He knew the natural lay of the land that a horseman would've taken. He knew where the old travois trails went, those very trails still visible if one knew what they were looking for, he did. And he knew LOS (line of sight) in that country better than the back of his hand. All of these being valuable assets in discerning what the participants said and more importantly, WHERE. His conclusions along withe Bookwalters and Meketa's still aren't seriously considered by some today because of other considerations which have little to do with reality and a lot to do with potty training and the time it takes to do it. Who can be the judge? Don't know and damn glad I don't, and those who do try and absolutely fail to see the truth should be judged accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 13, 2012 10:30:54 GMT -5
Amen! White bull's question is so loaded with severe complications and a call for a myriad of "what ifs" that it boggles the mind!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 13, 2012 11:16:30 GMT -5
Amen! White bull's question is so loaded with severe complications and a call for a myriad of "what ifs" that it boggles the mind! True, and I wasn't trying to embarrass him by my asnwer. I know its a hell of a way of saying "I don't know", but to be honest here, I'd side with him any day with his suppositions over anyone who claimed they knew everything. It is a legitimate question, one definitely to ponder and not ignored. But I honestly think if we'd go that route that there were another number of factors that also could be thrown into that mix, not the least of which was what was done at the Washita. These types of questions generally, although I would hope, not here, degenerate into the question of who committed the biggest of atrocities, whites or Indians, and I don't think there is anyone qualified enough to answer that one. But the question itself, as he asked it and if kept on track, without going off topic, by itself would be a great discussion. Speculation anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on May 13, 2012 15:36:20 GMT -5
I would like to try a little speculation. Om most forums, an attempt like this would very quickly turn into a spectacle of "he said" and "she said" and then fall apart into a mess of hurt feelings and anger.
This forum is different. Our mutual respect for each other allows us to kind of step to the edge but ease back to the middle without making it personal.
There is a lot knowledge on this forum, I'm reading material that has made me laugh, shocked me, fascinated me, and changed my way of thinking in some ways. I've learned so much from all of you.
I think we can do it. A lot of wrongs were committed by the Whites and the Indians. the question is why? Why did we slaughter each other. How can men living n the same continent find no way of developing mutual aims and wants. Wouldn't it be fun to discover those "whys" here?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 10, 2012 19:42:44 GMT -5
That's why I'm here! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 11, 2012 19:57:01 GMT -5
Me too!  |
|
