|
McMurtry begins by putting the
legendary massacres of the old west into perspective by
first defining what might constitute a massacre. Here, he
has focused only upon massacres with over 100 victims. All
totaled, massacres of this caliber in the American West
equal far less than the number of victims of the 9/11
terrorist attacks. When considering the 2002 vicious
mutilation of over 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda, it makes the
killing fields of North America look like a playground.
These facts alone, at so early an entry in the book, will
undoubtedly turn away revisionists from giving credibility
to the work, but the facts do indeed, speak for
themselves.
McMurtry lends a degree of balance to his work by
presenting the subject matter (massacres) for what they
are and avoids, as some reviewers have indicated, making
it a "white man - bad, red man - good"
politically correct portrayal. His first presentation is
that of the Mountain Meadow massacre, in which, Mormons
and Paiute Indians slaughtered somewhere around 125 - 140
whites of the Francher party whose families were in
covered wagons traveling through southern Utah.
Each of the other massacres involve white on red
atrocities. Some might ask why McMurtry did not include
the annihilation of Custer and the 7th at Little Big Horn.
In the opening chapter, McMurtry differentiates this as
this was face to face battle between opposing armies, not
the attack of innocents such as at Sand Creek.
Sand Creek is the next entry in the book, and like all of
the massacres studied, they are lacking depth. This is a
most enjoyable read, but throughout, it seems to have been
a rushed piece of work. McMurtry writes so well, its
impossible not to like reading his work, but these essays
are more about the consequences and debates centered
around the events than they are about the events
themselves. I don't necessarily find fault in that,
because by setting the readers curiosity in motion, the
reader is spurred towards further investigation of the
subject matter. And for that, McMurtry has supplied an
ample bibliography on each of the events studied.
This is a very enjoyable book. Shakespeare said,
"brevity is the soul of wit", but in this case,
brevity hurt the final outcome. I would have certainly
rated this book as a must read had it only contained more
critical detail.
Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com
Other
books you might enjoy!
|
