Merry Christmas!

[Gryphon]

For the historically minded, here's a little ghost of Christmas past:

[charlestudor2005]

Here are a few images:

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Gryphon

For the historically minded, here's a little ghost of Christmas past:

Or while you are drunk or with a hangover. P.S. The Germans got even in 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. ;-)

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Here are a few images:

What is the significance of 1492? Maybe that is when Columbus stumbled upon the Americas during his quest for Xanadu, perhaps? However, this picture is of Geronimo and members of his Apache band. As notorious as Apache depredations against white men were, the Apache's, including Geronimo's, depredations against the Mexicans persisted longer and were far more numerous and worse. Given half a chance, the Apache wiped out whole villages in Mexico. What follows is one several similar stories related by Geronimo himself:

“We entered Mexico on the north line of Sonora and followed the Sierra de Antunez Mountains to the south end of the range. Here we decided to attack a small village. (I do not know the name of this village.) At daylight we approached from the mountains. Five 56 horses were hitched outside. We advanced cautiously . . . Three times that day I was surrounded, but I kept fighting, dodging, and hiding. Several times during the day while in concealment I had a chance to take deliberate aim at some Mexican, who, gun in hand, was looking for me. I do not think I missed my aim either time. . . . But my feelings toward the Mexicans did not change—I still hated them and longed for revenge. I never ceased to plan for their punishment . . .” (pp. 55-56, Geronimo’s Story of His Life. http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Geronimo/GerStory.htm ).

Now consider who the Mexicans were/are: they were/are the descendants of the Mexicas, the indigenous people—Native Americans—of Mexico.

BTW, I wasn't going to post today, but I just can't help myself. Merry Christmas All!

[charlestudor2005]

Yeah, I knew that, and the dates of Geronimo don't exactly coincide with Columbus. However, I think the picture is meant to be somewhat representative rather than actual. Part of the reason is that there were no cameras (tintypes, even) back in Columbus' day. I also expected you to point out that the Apache nation didn't spread as far East as the East Coast, but you didn't mention it, so I will. And, if you want to get really picky about the whole thing, Columbus didn't land anywhere which is now considered part of the US. The first colonization of what is now considered the US was in the (what is now) Virginia area, and there were several indigenous tribes there, none of which were Apache.

@IBH--your knowledge of history never ceases to amaze me. We may be polar opposites in politics, but we both love history.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

However, I think the picture is meant to be somewhat representative rather than actual. Part of the reason is that there were no cameras (tintypes, even) back in Columbus' day.

I agree. While Geronimo was a remarkable man in many ways, other Native American leaders, such as King Philip (Metacom), Pontiac, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, or Chief Joseph, better symbolize Native American resistance to white encroachment. I just feel Geronimo’s banditry against other Native Americans undermines any claim he might have for such distinction. Most people who see that picture of him and his band do not know the truth, and those who are marketing that picture are counting on that ignorance. Yet, as you mentioned, there were no cameras to capture the images of great Native American leaders before the American Civil War. Just a few such, Geronimo, Quanah Parker, Red Cloud, Sitting Bull and Chief Joseph, etc., were photographed latter. Some, Crazy Horse, refused to sit for the camera. The picture (below) of Tecumseh is an artist’s guess at what he looked like. Tecumseh, a real hero in any culture, was the last leader who stood any chance of halting American expansion. Even then, such a halt would have probably lasted for only a generation: if that.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

@IBH-- we both love history.

Yes, we do love our history

[charlestudor2005]

For personal reasons, my two favorites are Sequoyah and Massasoit, both of which can be seen only through artist's renderings. My two favorite tribes are the Iroquois and the Cherokee, although I admit with the Cherokee it's because of their suffering on the Trail of Tears.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

For personal reasons, my two favorites are Sequoyah and Massasoit, both of which can be seen only through artist's renderings. My two favorite tribes are the Iroquois and the Cherokee, although I admit with the Cherokee it's because of their suffering on the Trail of Tears.

If you like the Iroquois, you need to read Allan W. Eckert’s Narratives of America series.

I thought of mentioning John Ross and Stand Watie. IMO I believe that if President Jackson had backed the Cherokee, led by John Ross, and John Marshall’s ruling, the states’ rights issue would have been more muted after 1830.

Stand Watie also stood against the Federal government, but he was wearing a uniform as a Confederate general. Most people don’t realize that Watie, a Cherokee chief, was the last Confederate field general to agree to a cease fire and surrender his army.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If you like the Iroquois, you need to read Allan W. Eckert’s Narratives of America series.

I found his Winning of America series. It is reviewed well, and looks interesting. I'm going to put at least one of them on my "to do" list. It appears none have been reduced to Kindle format.

BTW, I am not a speed reader, but I do read a lot. It takes me next to forever to get through a book. My favorites are fiction (helps me escape reality), but next to that is historical fiction. There, I get a strong dose of history mixed with a good storyteller. As you can see, I'm not a historical purist. However, I do prefer the realism that exists behind popularly accepted "facts." Debunking popular "facts" in favor of historical facts intrigues me.

[I B Hankering]

I started reading Allan W. Eckert’s books in the late 1970s. The first book of his I read was The Frontiersmen (1967). This book is essentially a biography of the famous backwoodsman Simon Kenton. Subsequently I read Wilderness Empire (1968). These remain my favorites. I suggest you start with his Wilderness Empire as it deals more with the Iroquois. The Frontiersmen deals more with the Shawnee.

Eckert’s books are considered historical fiction by most historians. His style of writing is identified as “narrative” history; wherein, he creates dialog to carry real, historical characters through real events. For example, Eckert took certain artistic liberties when he first retold the story about Colonel Crawford’s execution at the stake by the Abenaki. I have never found an original version of the story that was so graphic. In subsequent books, he was not nearly so descriptive, and his telling was closer to the original stories I have found.

After The Frontiersmen and the Wilderness Empire, I read The Conquerors (1970), The Wilderness War (1978), and Gateway to Empire (1982). I started, but did not finish Twilight Of Empire (1988). I guess I was burnt out. I never have finished it.

Several of the incidents Eckert relates in The Frontiersmen are repeated in his subsequent books, but from the perspective of other historical characters—not Kenton. Eckert ably proffers the point of view of Native Americans, the French, the English, and the colonists. Eckert delves deeply into the tribal lives of the Shawnee, Iroquois and the Algonquin, and he attempts to explain their institutions, traditions and motivations. As you read his series, you will also realize why certain places, such as Chicago, Detroit, Quebec, etc., came to be important.

Other historians have challenged some of his work. For example, Eckert believes the Shawnee chief, Blue Jacket, was actually a captured white-settlers’ child who was adopted and acculturated into the tribe. Most other historians refute this notion. Many historian's similarly declaim his biography on Tecumseh.

For my own part, I enjoy his writing style. Yet, I did find that Eckert included an entire passage, verbatim, about Montcalm and Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham before Quebec, from another source. Without remark or credit, Eckert appropriated this passage from nineteenth century American historian Francis Parkman’s France and England in North America. The copyright covering Parkman’s work has probably lapsed, but I still think Eckert should have given credit.

Later, I picked up and read Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh (1992) and The Court-Martial of Daniel Boone (1973). The later book is a short, anecdotal tale about Daniel Boone that I’d never heard about before. I recommend both of these also.

“‘Nous sommes tout Sauvages’ [We are all savages] graffito left by Canadian fur trader Illinois Country, 1680” (p. 6, Stephen Brumwell. White Devil: A True Story of War, Savagery And Vengeance in Colonial America. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 2004.) (Another good book! lol)

[charlestudor2005]

WOW!! You have given me my best Christmas present this year! I will certainly start, and with the Wilderness Empire as you suggest.

I, too, get burned out on writers when I read their books back-to-back. I read all of Dan Brown's books with the exception of The Lost Symbol b2b. At the end I was just tired of reading him. I have since learned to pace newly found, but good, writers.

TY.