on distortions of history....

last night, i was watching a fairly-recent documentary of the battle at the little bighorn river. the general topic was concerned with whether or not reno and benteen left custer out to dry, when they could have saved him.

the fact that this was hashed out a hundred years ago did not seem to matter, nor did the fact that, no matter how you slice it, the 7th cavalry was out-gunned and out-manned beyond any hope of any kind of victory. i was amazed (not in a good way) at many of the things that were said, as well as the false and convenient logic used to arrive at many of the conclusions taht were reached by people who a) should have known better and b) have more than a small influence on the prevailing interpretations of this little slice of history.

but on a more ominous note, extrapolatiing to "the big picture," what do these huge and glaring distortions and misinterpretations, just on this one, relatively minor topic, say for the rest of mankind's understanding of history? for all we know, our interpretations going back to the beginnings of civilisations are not only off, but completely backwards ~ whole schools of thought based on the flimsiest of logic and reason, due primarily to looking at past events through contemporary lenses.

or maybe, the producers of teh show were simply trying to push an agenda and make a few dollars - who knows ~

agreed, bear - my wife (a registered nurse) sees it every day....

mule_tail wrote: heres my theory if custer wouldve had the stuff we have today he couldve crushed them

This is the definition of a facile argument.

DD this is an old thread.   Mule hasn't been around for over twwo yeaars.   But you calling his well thought and expressed comment  "facile argument'.......could bring him back from the dead.