"Illustrations Of Custer’s Last Stand Show U.S. History..." Topic

… from a Different Perspective.

link

"Custer's legendary ‘last stand' at the Little Bighorn in Montana is one of the most iconic and controversial events of the American west.

The June 25 to 26, 1876 battle between elements of the U.S. 7th Cavalry and more than 2,000 Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors led to the slaughter of more than 250 American soldiers. From the moment the first reports of the massacre hit national newspapers, the events at the Little Bighorn have captivated the imaginations of Americans — the story has been the subject of no fewer than 31 films, more than 20 songs and at least one odious x-rated video game. And while Custer's failed (not to mention foolhardy) assault on a numerically superior band of warriors has been endlessly reconstructed, parsed and debated by historians, much of what we know of the massacre today comes to us through the lens of the ‘white man'… but not all.

Enter Red Horse: a Sioux chief and eyewitness to the battle. Five years after the historic clash, the 60-year-old Indian Wars survivor provided one of the few written native accounts of the famous fight. Committed to paper at the Cheyenne River Reservation in 1881, the Minneconjou Lakota warrior also authored a series of illustrations to accompany his narrative…"
From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The Indians account of the battle were pretty much ignored. I'm more apt to accept their version of what happened than I am the majority of historians version.

Our local library had a book of Red Horse's pictures. As a kid I checked that book out countless times.

Thanks for posting this Tango, really interesting stuff

Happy you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Indian accounts were often simply hard to understand. Mistranslation was a problem. Indian reluctance to tell the truth after they were finally forced back to the Reservations and finally their comprehension was very different from how whites viewed events. Timelines were absent. Making it difficult to estimate when events happened.

Their views can be illuminating, but hardly definitive. They also had a later tendency to exaggerate their role in events.

Thanks,

John

Hello John

It's been my experience, while researching and through empirical observation, that virtually all military personnel exaggerate their accomplishments. ;-)

I remember studying those same illustrations and others like them in an article in an old hardcover issue of "American Heritage" that was part of a collection my grandparents had. A happy memory for me, so thanks for the post, Tango.

No mention my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Hey DJ. I would guess you're joking a little. That's why professional Military forces usually try and have multiple sources. I'm not sure even under perfect circumstances if you could have ever gotten anything definitive from the Indians other than broad generalizations. Poor interpreters, agendas and Indian reluctance to talk much about the battle (in the immediate years afterward was understandable) made the info gained quite suspect. Even Walter Camp who valued the info obtained from many interviews with them was cautious about its complete veracity.

My thinking is that you can get a broad overview of some things that happened but specific details and timelines are probably wishful thinking.

Thanks,

John

Hello John

Multiple sources to compare and cross reference are ideal. Personal memoirs are always suspect to me. Any battle is muddled and not everyone carried a watch and a notebook. I'd be inclined to place a bit more value on the accounts given a few years later, after the outrage had worn away. Once established, the timeline can provide context for the individual narratives.

PS – Growing up I was under the impression that WWII in the Pacific was a personal fight between my family and the Japanese Empire. I didn't know we had allies (America, Britain, Australia) until I was almost in my teens.