PDA

View Full Version : Custer's last "stand"



Terry Yager
January 22nd, 2005, 12:10 AM
So I'm watching this show on The History Channel, in which it was stated that a total of 268 men died in the famous battle at Little Big Horn. That's only the number of men that were in Gen. Custer's group. Are they saying that no Indians were killed, or just that my ancestors were something other than men?
(Don't mind me...just venting...)

--T

mbbrutman
January 22nd, 2005, 05:58 AM
We generally don't count heathens.

That's also probably why tsunami relief was so slow to start, especially amongst many conservative/fundamentalist organizations. Things only got rolling after the level of shame became too great.

(Mike, in a bad and sarcastic mood)

Exluddite
January 22nd, 2005, 11:09 AM
I remeber the first time I saw the bumper sticker "Custer had it coming". I broke down laughing. In all seriousness though, I think Custer and many others of that era would be facing war crime tribunals today.

carlsson
January 25th, 2005, 01:46 AM
Seriously, maybe noone counted the enemy's casualities, and the show on History Channel would not want to expose uncertainity by saying "268 of Custer's men and an unknown number of Indians were killed".

Regarding the tsunami; maybe I'm cold hearted and ruthless but I think it was a good thing that there were a great deal of Western tourists around, mainly Scandinavian and German. Although some died, most seem to have returned home in physical (albeit not psychological) fit. The media coverage over here focused on the 50 dead and 1500 missing Swedes instead of the 100,000 dead natives, but I think the coverage AND the $40M+ national fund raising probably had only been 1/10 if "only" native people were affected.

vic user
January 25th, 2005, 04:04 AM
I know a few people here that were also glad that Westerners died in the tsunami, and that it just wasn't the poor people who live there.

chris

carlsson
January 25th, 2005, 11:18 PM
Well, sorry if it sounds like I wish people dead - that was not how I meant. Rather that most tourists survived, were brought home but for a while kept the focus and international promises on the disaster.

The earthquake in Iran on December 25th, 2003 (i.e. exactly one year earlier) consumed fewer lives - around 50,000 or so? - but was taken off the headlines after a week IIRC. They were promised a couple of hundred million $, but in reality only received a few percent of that amount. Maybe there is more that can be done to prevent a tsunami caused by a quake at sea, like spending money on a warning system, than to prevent a land quake.

tachyon
January 28th, 2005, 10:35 AM
The difference, I believe, is that much of the aid for the Tsunami is being admistered and delivered by NGO's. In Iran, there was only one option, give the money to the Iranian government who didn't do much toward assisting their own citizens despite the influx of funds. When people realized that the money wasn't helping the victims of the quake, most quit giving.

Tachyon

Unknown_K
January 28th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Funds are easy to divert to "other" projects. Western nations should send food, medicine, temporary shelter, etc directly to the area in need so that it gets used when it is needed most.