Where Do You Stand?

[joewiggs]

The above listed terms do much to polarize many forums and, are often associated, with a lively interchange of harshness and rancor. Identify yourself and let the fun begin. Please submit a qualifying statement with each identification. Thank you!

[stumblingbear]

I guess you can call me a Custerphile! It simply irks me to read of so many persons who insist that Custer was responsible for the entire affair while disregarding the fact that he was ordered to attack Men, women, and children who lived on their own lands in their own country by a U. S. government greedy for natural and mineral riches.

He was deserted by Reno and Benteen and left to die with his entire command even though they heard the sound of firing coming from the Custer field for over two hours!

When true justice is gathered and made known to the general public, Custer will receive the recognition he has deserved, but has failed to get, all these years.

[cinnamon]

I guess you can call me Custerphile too. But I must state, as once did Doctor John M. Carroll, brilliant man and historian of the highest value, that I am Custerphile just "because the historical facts warrant it."

[whitebull]

What else can I be? Custer was sent to the battle, ordered there and ordered as to what had to be done when he got there. I bet a fin to a donut that he would have been charged if he had not done what he did when he got there.

Why is it that most people want to label him a jerk for doing what he had to do. Under the circumstances I think he did a good job. He would have done a better job if he had been supported!

[stumblingbear]

Your post makes me wonder what could have happened if Reno and Benteen's combined forces had ridden toward Custer. Ye, they could have all perished. They could have,equally, caused the Indians to fall back also.

If Custer was a survivor at that point, his command skills may have been just the trick to encourage the men in a way as Reno's leadership accomplished the opposite. The combined forces may then have been able to find safety until the arrival of Gen. Terry.

We will never know not because this theory was impossible but, because no one ever tried!

[joewiggs]

Whipped, forces in disarray, men abandoned, no covering assigned to protect the crossing, Reno and Benteen later insisted that they thought that Custer could hold his own or that he had gone off to join Terry leaving them to their fate.

Does the term "excuses" suddenly enter the thought process? Today, through the studies and time dedicated to the components of the war theater, we have a much better understanding of the mental processes that influence (positively and negatively) combat abilities of soldiers under fire. We better comprehend the ultimate and critical influence of command structure and what is likely to occur when that structure is suddenly withdrawn thus dissolving the unison of comrade-in-arms and replaced with an "everyman for himself" mental state.

One can not help but wonder, does the term Custerphile encompass the disgust and aversion one feels toward Reno and Benteens' lack of martial assistance to Custer rather than a tangible philosophical stance?

[strange]

I don't like the term, but I chose Custerphile.

Custer is one of my favorite soldiers of all time and I have an unashameable love for him.

I'm back!

[tbw]

Neither.

Don't like the term(s) either.

But if I were to try to describe my feelings about him or any of those troopers I would have to say I'm more neutral in my feelings than most. I do tend to shy away from extremist remarks about them. I don't think that's needed or fair. And that would include overdoing it to the point of near worship of the man as vilifying him to the point of the absurd. And in this business you get both, so maybe the terms, whether we like them or not, are needed.

Just from my perspective, I don't think anyone can find the truth if they aren't willing to take the donkey blinders off. And extremist phobes and philes aren't ever likely to find the truth than the myths they keep running through their minds; like some kind of weird Twilight Zone movie where Custer lives and a M5a1 tank crew comes to save his sorry behind without the tank. And you just have to love these extremist pho/iles who say they have every right to believe what they want to. Believing is one thing. Proving it is another. But then their belief, as most extremist are, is based upon the heretical rather than the practical.

A better pole might be to ask what degree of phobe or phile are you? State phobe or phile and then state the degree you think you are. This based upon a 1 to 10 rating where 1 is near neutral and 10 is extremist to the point of bow down hero worship (phile) or pure unadulterated hatred of the man (phobe). Where are you?

Me? Vote me the goose egg.

[cinnamon]

I share your opinion TBW. Of course.

[joewiggs]

Needless to say T.B.W. is absolutely correct! a substantial number of people view the battle as a "minor" military engagement that singled the "end" of a way of life for an insignificant people.

Others, like us, who view the battle much more significantly were appraised and regarded as members of two disparaging camps;those who believe Custer acted correctly and those who feel his actions were unwarranted and asinine. Either way, both groups are considered to be sadly obsessed with proving a rather mundane and historically unassuming stance.

In summation, Custerphiles and Custerphobes are regarded by others in a slightly derogatory perspective.

While I can not speak for others, my interest is the "truth" regarding the actions of all the major participants in this battle and the minor ones as well in order to determine what actually happened.

My belief that the "truth" was morphed into a character assignation of Custer to protect the reputation of the 7Th. Calvary and the real and substantiated military prowess of Custer was perverted prompts me to find evidence that substantiates my beliefs.

Therefore, although both categories are extremities of philosophical thought, the term Custerphile is more representative of my position than any other.

I fully and completely appreciate and understand T.B.W.'s position. My only wonder is where does GCC stand and, I'm surprised he has not taken this opportunity to "voice his choice!"

[whitebull]

I won't pretend to speak for CC but, I can only speculate that he will fall in the category of, "I hate Custer" which is about as Custerphobe as one can get!

[tbw]

I suppose this sort of question can lead to what is called profiling. Something I detest and for obvious reasons. Profiling in law enforcement and those types of fields do serve a useful purpose, so I am not speaking of those here, where I feel it doesn't belong. Recently, in fact very recently Google, you know that search engine announced that it was discontinuing about 56 of it privacy policy's in favor of just one. Sounds great, doesn't it? Nope. If you read their fine print and their reasons for doing it is for better service to their customers. Increasing this "better service" feature means exactly what to you who will still use Google as your premier and only search engine? Well, in short they will be profiling you, watching where you go, what you search for and all that so that they can quote "serve you better". Wonderful you say? No it isn't because they wont be offering you an opt out clause, you wont have a say in their George Orwellian world of big brother, not just watching you, but personally profiling every move you make on the internet. I can't begin to tell you what this would mean for the world's police organizations. And of course down the line for finding you when you decide to head for the lost caves of neverplace because the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. This kind of profiling wont serve anyone any good that uses Google.

And I know, I've ranged far from the original post here. But profiling any person for any reason outside of their willing participation just isn't right.

So I would say, whatever CC's views are, are his to share, if he wants to. If not, heck that's his right too. No matter what Google says.

[joewiggs]

Well said Sir! I need not expound on your admirable disposition. GCC has the right to speak his opinion for himself and, I too, hope that he is comfortable enough to do so here, among his friends!

[muleskinner]

As I've aged, and having read most of the Native American accounts that weren't available to me in my youth, my opinion of Custer has changed. As a child, he was of course heroic, but then became something of a rabid dog-type anti-hero - much like Mulligan's portrayal of him in "Little Big Man." Now, I see the general as a mixture of eccentricities, narcissim, arrogance and bravery. I can't really say that I'm a 'phobe' or a 'phile." In terms of his conduct at The Little Big Horn, I'm of the opinion that his battle plan MIGHT have worked, and wasn't necessarily the product of a deranged mind with a lust for a Pennsylvania Avenue mailing address. Alas, when waging war - total war - against a warrior society like the Sioux and Cheyenne, there aren't any do-overs or mulligans. When the coordination of Reno's move on the village and Custer's attack was fouled, the fate of Custer's command was pretty much sealed. Best case scenario: with the braves engaged with Reno, Custer's command enters the village and drives the women and children onto the plains, where they're rounded up and held hostage until the warriors give up and everyone heads back to the reservation. Things didn't unfold as I BELIEVE they were planned, obviously. With Reno already repulsed and galloping for his hill, Custer and his 200-odd men collided with a very angry and motivated Sioux behemoth. That doesn't make Custer stupid or insane; it makes him unlucky - for the first and last time in his professional career.

[joewiggs]

what a great and even-keeled response to a hot debated subject. Of course, your position is full of merit and appreciated by all. thank you Sir and welcome. ;D