Custer's Last Stand Summary
The predicament of the Native American Indians throughout history is devastated by many battles of relocation from one reservation to the next. One would perceive the Indians merely as puppets that were manipulated by white settlers. However, the Battle of the Little Bighorn was unique. Custer’s Last Stand has been a symbol of bravery, of folly, and of oppression.
The New York Times article provides first-hand knowledge of the event and presents an image of heroic American soldiers who were overpowered by the “savage” Indians. The author takes a firm emotional stance throughout the article, using pathos to create a positive view of the American soldiers while painting an image of Indians as bloodthirsty. The author uses emotionally-charged …show more content…
Although Red Horse was unsure whether this solider was General Custer, he further provides the audience with an example of this officer’s bravery by stating that “this officer saved the lives of many soldiers by turning his horse and covering the retreat”. Red Horse’s account presents conflicting perspectives of how Custer was viewed. This discrepancy may have its roots in the veracity of the source. This account was written five years after the battle, at a time when Americans were vengeful and the government became more determined to destroy or tame the “hostile” Indians. Thus, perhaps the positive statement came from a Native American who is enthusiastic to present his enemies in a laudable manner, which would be more easily received by the interviewer, audience, and white men.
The Battle of Little Bighorn was one in a series of conflicts that occurred during the continuous intrusions of whites into the Indians’ sacred lands in the Black Hills. Although both primary sources discuss the tragedy of the battle, “An Eyewitness Account by the Lakota Chief Red Horse” is a more reliable source as it provides specific details of the battle without using emotionally charged words to state opinions. By overstating emotions throughout the article, the author of the
The New York Times article provides first-hand knowledge of the event and presents an image of heroic American soldiers who were overpowered by the “savage” Indians. The author takes a firm emotional stance throughout the article, using pathos to create a positive view of the American soldiers while painting an image of Indians as bloodthirsty. The author uses emotionally-charged …show more content…
Although Red Horse was unsure whether this solider was General Custer, he further provides the audience with an example of this officer’s bravery by stating that “this officer saved the lives of many soldiers by turning his horse and covering the retreat”. Red Horse’s account presents conflicting perspectives of how Custer was viewed. This discrepancy may have its roots in the veracity of the source. This account was written five years after the battle, at a time when Americans were vengeful and the government became more determined to destroy or tame the “hostile” Indians. Thus, perhaps the positive statement came from a Native American who is enthusiastic to present his enemies in a laudable manner, which would be more easily received by the interviewer, audience, and white men.
The Battle of Little Bighorn was one in a series of conflicts that occurred during the continuous intrusions of whites into the Indians’ sacred lands in the Black Hills. Although both primary sources discuss the tragedy of the battle, “An Eyewitness Account by the Lakota Chief Red Horse” is a more reliable source as it provides specific details of the battle without using emotionally charged words to state opinions. By overstating emotions throughout the article, the author of the