Richard Fox's book on LBH Archaeology Dec 5, 2013 11:55:45 GMT -5
Post by strange on Dec 5, 2013 11:55:45 GMT -5
Dec 5, 2013 11:35:52 GMT -5 @fred said:Oh, my! I see Clair is back with more quotes taken out of context and more distortions.
I am sure those quotes are accurate, but without the rest of the surrounding text and the reasoning involved, the context is all skewed. Besides, personally, I divorce “panic” from “no last stand,” and I think anyone who does not is delusional and probably operating in his own personal dreamscape.
We have been down this road before on this site and I am not about to go down it again, but this nonsense about no American soldiers would panic is completely asinine. We sit here and condemn Marcus Reno for his actions causing the panic in his ranks, yet Custer, Keogh, and Yates get away unscathed. What, did Reno have only Europeans in his command?
I wonder sometimes how much real study and effort people have put into this Custer battle and I wonder about their organizational skills. We toss off firsthand accounts because we claim the Indians were entirely too contradictory and their accounts only mirrored what white men expected them to say—John Gray threw his hands up and discounted Indian stories as unfathomable, yet Gray, like in so many other areas, was wrong. Properly organized, the Indian accounts tell us as much or even more than those left us by the likes of Theodore Goldin, Peter Thompson, Gustave Korn, William Morris, and even Carlo DeRudio.
The answers are all there, ladies and gentlemen: they only need to be discovered, and I am sure many of you—just like all of Mike Griffith’s “scholars”—have missed them. Even Richard Fox missed the most significant “why,” yet his conclusions were accurate even based on what he did discover… at least in some respects.
So, believe what you want, but anyone who simply dismisses arbitrarily the notion of “panic,” or of “no last stand,” is making a serious mistake.
Best wishes and Merry Christmas,
I was the one who asked Clair to put this up so we can see where Fox is coming from before we discuss him. I was gonna move on and retract my posts because its not fair to comment on an author when I haven't purchased his book.
The counter argument is not that no soldiers panicked, and it is not the people like Clair or who are making for sure declarative statements about what happened (which Fox does). There's a verse in the Bible about stating things with a surety, and not only does Fox appear to be acting absolutely sure about something that no one can be sure about but he is also attacking another author on the basis of his surety that the soldiers panicked and crumbled and were killed within minutes. I'm not very sure that anyone else is 100% sure of Lame White Man taking out C Company, for instance.
Fox, unlike you, appears to be making his stance very clear but you again pop up trying to say that he is misunderstood. In the past you have said you don't entirely agree with him about no last stand but then you still run page afater page to prop him up... so is he understood or not? Do you agree with him or not? What do you agree with him about? State it on the record so that it can live or die. Reno was not massacred within minutes. De Rudio kept his wits when he was abandoned. Dorman and Reynolds made last stands where they fell. These are the people for whom there are witnesses.