04-10-2010, 06:40 AM
Said Drago: "Your non-debate conclusion is my loss. Your offer of contrapuntal questions is my gain." Replied Jewett: "I have simple personal reservations about time and priority I shall address further below. I did indicate that I await a bibliography and can certainly monitor the thread and other offerings." Is it historical fiction, alternative history, or simply a straight-forward effort in scholarship? The difficult in arguing that Hitler might have succeeded in getting to Antwerp in force and splitting the alliance is destroyed in both the research and the simulation; it is an item on my bucket list to do a staff ride for that event. Nor have I been to Gettysburg. But I have walked several of the Revolutionary battlefields; the solemnity of Antietam lay like a thick fog. The answer to your thesis probably won't be found on the battlefield (though it might be illuminated). Try as I might, I cannot seriously succeed in making a case for Lee's victory at Gettysburg.
If the Gatlings were intended for defensive use, why again didn't he put one or two of the 175-lb. units and their ammo on a pack mules? There is material suggestive of the fact that they were not appreciated as a tactical tool and they they were poorly maintained by low-level troops. Perhaps I was swayed by the New Yorker cartoon. Perhaps the entire strategic/tactical approach to the problem was flawed in the short run and successful in the long run by other means. But I don't radically disagree with you about the effect of the missing sabers and Gatlings; your thesis lies in the inter-relationships and "politics" of the players on one side.
Your thesis may deserve a good deal of work, and Jan Klimkowski's ideas for a narrative worth exploration (if pricey). I see nothing wrong in writing a series of graduated steps -- outline, abstract, treatment, short story, and then from there on to the bigger possibilities if the research stands up to scrutiny. I don't see why I wouldn't be available for review and question, but I personally question its priority (for me) in the scheme of things. A friend of mine recently expressed our national situation as a 'circling down the drain' and, having read a book about Crazy Horse when I was an impressionable middle school student, I probably have a bias I have retained. Custer was not the only one mythologized, and I have read of Sitting Bull's trek, Sand Creek, Dee Brown's account of Wounded Knee, and more, and I always felt Custer got his righteous come-uppance. If the genocidal types want to kill each other, particularly one who was obviously self-centered, egotistical and likely pathological (can you see Freud, even at the age of 20, and his couch brought along by wagon, asking "Autie" about his relationship with his devout preacher father who wanted him to be a preacher too?), then I say "keep going, boys, and don't forget the Gatling guns and the sabers this time".
So perhaps the first step in the graduated series of written treatments is to explain why an understanding of the deep politics behind the death of Custer at Little Big Horn is pertinent and illustrative of today's national political scene, and why a significant effort to archaeologically dig up the truths hidden by the myths before or even in parallel with similar efforts relative to the numerous recent deep political SCAD's will have an impact on the freedom and quality of life for my 30-something children and their toddlers.
And, please, kind sir, do not take that as a personal rejection of you or your thesis, but understand it as a challenge to all deep political researchers and observers.
I have asked the question before:
Where is the schwerpunkt (the focal point, or center of gravity) of our efforts, singly and collectively? Where should our efforts be concentrated?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbdpQ2pPlD8
If the Gatlings were intended for defensive use, why again didn't he put one or two of the 175-lb. units and their ammo on a pack mules? There is material suggestive of the fact that they were not appreciated as a tactical tool and they they were poorly maintained by low-level troops. Perhaps I was swayed by the New Yorker cartoon. Perhaps the entire strategic/tactical approach to the problem was flawed in the short run and successful in the long run by other means. But I don't radically disagree with you about the effect of the missing sabers and Gatlings; your thesis lies in the inter-relationships and "politics" of the players on one side.
Your thesis may deserve a good deal of work, and Jan Klimkowski's ideas for a narrative worth exploration (if pricey). I see nothing wrong in writing a series of graduated steps -- outline, abstract, treatment, short story, and then from there on to the bigger possibilities if the research stands up to scrutiny. I don't see why I wouldn't be available for review and question, but I personally question its priority (for me) in the scheme of things. A friend of mine recently expressed our national situation as a 'circling down the drain' and, having read a book about Crazy Horse when I was an impressionable middle school student, I probably have a bias I have retained. Custer was not the only one mythologized, and I have read of Sitting Bull's trek, Sand Creek, Dee Brown's account of Wounded Knee, and more, and I always felt Custer got his righteous come-uppance. If the genocidal types want to kill each other, particularly one who was obviously self-centered, egotistical and likely pathological (can you see Freud, even at the age of 20, and his couch brought along by wagon, asking "Autie" about his relationship with his devout preacher father who wanted him to be a preacher too?), then I say "keep going, boys, and don't forget the Gatling guns and the sabers this time".
So perhaps the first step in the graduated series of written treatments is to explain why an understanding of the deep politics behind the death of Custer at Little Big Horn is pertinent and illustrative of today's national political scene, and why a significant effort to archaeologically dig up the truths hidden by the myths before or even in parallel with similar efforts relative to the numerous recent deep political SCAD's will have an impact on the freedom and quality of life for my 30-something children and their toddlers.
And, please, kind sir, do not take that as a personal rejection of you or your thesis, but understand it as a challenge to all deep political researchers and observers.
I have asked the question before:
Where is the schwerpunkt (the focal point, or center of gravity) of our efforts, singly and collectively? Where should our efforts be concentrated?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbdpQ2pPlD8
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"