|
|
This
book is a most enjoyable read, but is a very narrow
presentation of Indian history. Michael Blake is certainly a
very gifted writer and this book is a wonderful
presentation, if, and that's a big "if", it is
read within the context of which it was written. By that I
mean, I fear that many readers might take this rather narrow
presentation of "white man, bad - red man, good"
history and run with it as being an all-inclusive
presentation. That's not what it is, and I don't believe
that's what Blake intended, but revisionist historians have
given us such a skewed view of the history of the American
West, particularly in white/Indian relations, that I'm
afraid that might indeed be the end result.
|
|
INDIAN YELL is a presentation of
twelve different events. The events are portrayed quite
accurately, in fact, Blake gives the most accurate
accounting of what took place at what has become known as
Beecher's Island that I have found. And the problem is, I
do not believe Blake has given any "bad"
information here, I simply believe a matter so complex as
the history of the American Indians in the 19th century
cannot possibly be contained in the confines of a book of
less than 200 pages, or for that matter, in the confines
of twelve specific events. What I mean is, there is a much
bigger picture that is not encapsulated here.
Perhaps the most stunning example would be the portrayal
of the history of the Sioux. Don't misunderstand me here,
certainly there is no question the American government
mishandled the settlement of Indian lands at virtually
every turn, and in the case of the Sioux, much emphasis is
placed upon the massacre at Wounded Knee, but the overall
picture is often left untold.
Historians, in the vain of Dee Brown's epic "Bury My
Heart at Wounded Knee", try to interpret the Indian
wars of the northern plains only as
"Indian-white" wars and described them only from
the viewpoint of the Sioux hostiles. Historians typically
brush off as "mercenaries" those tribes that
became allies to the whites against the Sioux.
To view the Crow (who white trappers and traders had
predicted in the 1830's would soon be extinct due to their
far more numerous red enemies) and the Arikara (who also
lost their land to the Sioux) as white
"mercenaries" is far beyond simplistic reasoning
and completely overlooks the long history of Indian
warfare in the region. The Crow, Arikara and many other
tribes had been fighting the Sioux (and losing, for the
most part) for generations before they received any
effective aid from the whites. Twentieth century
historians are shortsighted in their work to attempt to
lend understanding of the plight of the Indian without an
awareness of the history of intertribal warfare.
The Sioux migrated south and west to the Missouri around
1750. In the century preceding and following that
movement, the Sioux engaged in war with at least
twenty-six other Indian tribes, as well as the River Metis
and the U.S. Army. Historians almost always fail to note
that the most dramatic battles fought between the army and
the Sioux were on lands the Sioux had taken from other
tribes since 1851. Also overlooked is that the Arikara and
Hidatsa chiefs who had signed the Fort Laramie Treaty of
1851 had both been killed by the Sioux when in 1864, the
Arakara Chief White Shield petitioned the army to uphold
its treaty and punish the Sioux.
I've ventured off course, so let me return to Blake's work
here. This is a highly readable and well-written piece. I
seek only to remind readers of what Blake's presentation
was surely meant to be; a depiction of twelve events that
were a small part of the overall picture of history. Those
twelve events are well presented here.
Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com
Other
books you might enjoy!
|
