|
Post by Beth on Mar 9, 2016 2:22:18 GMT
Ah, wisdom, from a mother and an owner of a Labrador. Both fine traits. Regards, tom If you are talking my dog, I have to tell you he isn't a Lab, though he has mistaken for a flat coated retriever. He's a Golden Retriever border collie cross and if we don't keep him trimmed he looks just like a big black golden retriever. We just keep his coat really short because of the heat.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2016 3:17:38 GMT
I disagree. Belonging to the board is a given, but true belonging means that an effort must be put forth that is so far lacking. There is a give and take, an openness, and all I have seen is his give with the door of his mind slammed shut and locked. Dialog as all of us have found out the hard way is not a one way street.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 9, 2016 3:29:00 GMT
Yes openness and two way dialog are important on a message board, but sometimes it take a bit of time to build up trust and candor--on all sides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 10:34:05 GMT
Matt, if you're still around and understandably reluctant to put a lot of personal details and qualifications online, I would suggest contacting the concerned parties via private message. Just like real life, a quiet one-on-one chat can give both sides a better chance to relate and find a resolution. I doubt you know the backstory of how this board formed, but let's just say their wariness is valid too.
Cheers,
conrad
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by mac on Mar 9, 2016 10:50:21 GMT
I will leave you all to agree with each other.
Regards Matt
Matt I doubt any two people in the world are in agreement about LBH. The thing about this board is that people tend to discuss with civility, openness and reason. I have congratulated you in the past on the quality of your posts. Others are open about their credentials; that is their choice. I have none particularly! You naturally have the right to channel your inner Indian and head home but I hope you will not. Cheers
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 9, 2016 11:36:48 GMT
There are many sides to the argument on were the word comes from and what it meant. www.native-languages.org/iaq5.htm However like many words the meaning and usage has drifted and taken on connotations. When you read 19th century writing, just the fact they use the term squaw instead of woman shows in the writer's mind there is a difference. Try calling your wife or daughter your squaw and see what reaction you get. Not quite that brave but asked her just now what it meant. Her answer Indian woman. I guess we are behind the times in Arizona and haven't learned the other meanings attributed by others.
Maybe Phoenix people would have a different meaning since it has grown so large.
I am not sure where the word would come up in normal conversation or how it was changed but I know now my wife thinks it means Indian woman.
I wonder what Hilton thinks it means.
"Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort"
I think this covers it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2016 12:25:11 GMT
This too will pass.
I don't find the word squaw offensive, but then again, maybe I would were my wife to be called one. In that instance though my ire would be directed at a bloody pulp made so by her.
I don't find Redskin offensive either, and anyone who suggests that the Washington Redskins should change the name they have had for eighty years (including Boston) had better be prepared to defend their personage.
I do find the use of the word wench directed at a woman offensive, and those that use it say more of themselves than anything else including Captain RIFed WP.
What I would suggest though is if the word squaw is used hereabouts it be limited to the time frame we most discuss, the Indian Wars period. It is accurate for the times. It conveys no meaning other than the historical usage for today. It is I think a suitable compromise.
As to other matters on the table at the moment.
I will clear the air regarding myself and Matt.
I hold no animosity toward him. I am interested in his background for purposes of understanding his positions better. I am surprised by many of his positions, as they are not consistent, I feel, with a combat arms officer, but then again I don't know if he was a combat arms officer, he has never told anyone, and we come around full circle. I know some, indeed more than a few, officers who are in other branches, who are not attuned to the rapidity and finality of "better be right" quickly made decisions. I know another few who could give a rat's behind about taking a deep dive into enemy culture for the purpose of first understanding that culture, then defeating it. There are too damned many of them, and our lack of progress in this current conflict shows that the malady is alive, well, and indeed thriving.
What I will say though is I do not need the wiki definition of command and control taken from (yes I knew what it was from jump street) the now obsolete FM 3-0. They were the very same words used in FM 100-5 "Operations", 3-0 predecessor, for which I once served on a review panel for. I would have much rather seen it in an officer's own words, so that I might evaluate his understanding of the definition.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2016 12:39:13 GMT
Chuck, I must say that this is all my fault and I shouldn’t have been a smart arse and tried to bring up the past augment with the Irisher from another time, I forgot that Beth was not around at that time and has no idea what I was referring to, so it was all my fault.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2016 12:39:50 GMT
I will pose a question for you all, and Matt too if he cares to join in.
Now there are some experts that say, that Custer left ford D and took the Yates battalion up to cemetery ridge and then waited or deployed to await either the Keogh contingent or reinforcements including Benteen’s battalion. Now I am going to throw this theory out of the window, because I have an idea that Custer was forced back and wanted to re-join Keogh, but was prevented by warriors coming up from deep ravine and other drainages.
I would also add that if they did stop it was to treat Lt. Smith as he could have been the officer shot at ford D, so imagine just how this could have unfolded, Custer takes either two or up to four companies with him, he leaves one back over on the high promontory as a rear guard, which makes good sense because this linkage point could act threefold, as a fall-back position, a position to watch the ford below (ford B) and a rallying point for Benteen.
Once Custer reaches the ford D area, he sends E company forward as a vanguard while the other made ready, this vanguard is repulsed and in the aftermath and confusion, the warriors start to cross on his left flank and try to cut him off and this is why he initially went north (as in the JSIT account) and then back south to cemetery, once on this point he rallies his companies and treats the wounded and then he sees that the route back south is full of Indians, and who are by now on three sides, this would have given him no choice but to fight it out.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2016 12:58:17 GMT
Ian: No fault attaches. Never have seen you use the word other than in the historical context. I would suspect Beth or any other, would feel the same.
I am going to place your scenario on hold for a short while, but at first glance it seems plausible. Holding for:
Does anyone know of or can point to anything that specifically points to Ford B excursion, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, being contained in any Indian testimony or battlefield evidence?
Does anyone know of anything that precludes " Custer went to the river" meaning any other area than Ford D?
If so let's examine them, then proceed with an evaluation of the Indian's chosen tactics, along with the associate techniques and procedures in that lite.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2016 13:15:52 GMT
And you will recall Conrad that the founders early on, which you number amongst determined to make this board take a different slant than the others, one to which a member came with side arms loaded with facts and evidence as a prelude to discussion. If it was a question then it was first in a listening mode, followed by why, then listening again, and being open to the answers received.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 440
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 9, 2016 14:28:56 GMT
Yan, Your scenario could very well have played out as you describe. One company (L) left behind on Calhoun hill to guard the rear and watch for Benteen. 4 companies could have gone to Ford D with Custer. I have become more convinced over time that Ford D is the ford where an officer was wounded and that ford B was never the site of much more than Boyer and scouts shooting into the village.
Anyway, to your scenario. How would we explain the I company position and markers if Custer had 4 companies with him at ford D? If he left I company in the swale and took 3 companies to ford D, what was the purpose of I being left behind, other than to watch for Benteen, which L company could also have done?
Not trying to shoot holes in your scenario, just trying to understand how the markers got where they are under your scenario.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2016 14:44:49 GMT
Good points Colt, yes the number of companies could have been three and not four, and the third would more likely to be C Company, because its commander was with the HQ unit and close to hand. Keogh and Company I, have always caused something of a problem because of their locality and Keogh was found amongst them, but so was the 1st sergeant of C Company so that confuses things further.
One notion that I am currently pondering over is the idea that Custer was a little cautious when approaching ford D and C and I Companies were further behind the two lead Companies of F and E and therefore had a head start when the bugle was sounded to retire and I still thing that things were pretty bad when they got to cemetery ridge and there the two groups were separated and maybe even splintered into separated HQ-F-E with I and C doing their own thing after seeing things going pear shaped with Custer and Yates, so they naturally headed back to Calhoun and even south to Reno and Benteen.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 9, 2016 15:49:30 GMT
Yan Come, come, you can not take all the glory for bringing up the "Irisher from another time" as being the stone in anyone's shoe. We are all adults and capable of intelligent discussions which occasionally have passions ans emotions attached. If heated a give and take can cool down with maturity on both sides. Your discussions are promoted by your values and beliefs as are the rest of us. Honesty is always the best policy.
If an army combat vet is so sensitive that he/she can not discuss issues from 140 years ago without hurt feelings what can one say? I get drilled daily for silly thoughts and posts on 2 boards (used to be 3 till I became a troll according to the legend in his own mind, the warrior of Central Park, the Irish Dragoon) and learn from my errors. So why can't they?
Admitting mistakes may be more difficult for some than others like myself, who having been married 44 years to the same woman, realize how wrong I am daily as pointed out by the Lady in charge. It is not hard to admit mistakes since it is kinda like that 1st bit of squash. You know it is gonna suck but you do it any way! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2016 18:15:11 GMT
Refocusing a bit on Indian TTP, and taking into account the JSIT narrative, we know that Custer split off one company (L) as a rear guard, is it then possible that the rest were split by Indian tactical maneuver, or as a reaction to that maneuver exclusively.
I think it possible IF that maneuver was slow and deliberate, not so much if it was at an overall rapid pace.
A lot of battalion sized combat actions in Korea were so created, and the NKPA and CCF TTP were quite similar to Indian methodology including the use of prearranged meaning sound and visual signals with a heavy emphasis on taking their own sweet time about it, and counting heavily on infiltration before swarm.
In a rapid action scenario the tendency for the companies would be to cluster close I'd venture, while the time consuming infiltration would tempt them into putting individual fingers into the leaks as they would appear.
|
|