|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jan 1, 2010 10:02:40 GMT -6
By JP Dunn published early 1890. Has this book been reviewed here? Hard to get over here (france), got it occasion from amazone, just finished it and enjoyed a lot reading it allthough it has some 'bizar' chapters I would like to discuss here with those who have the book. He is more or less on the indian side (for the time he wrote it that is...) except weirdly on the sand creek massacre (battle for him)he is a fanatic Pro Chivington. All the same arguments in favor of the defense of the Navaho or Apache become down factors for the Cheyenne. Cheyennes needed to be punished, men and women, Navahos plundered but that was logical accodring to Dunn. (i resume) Neither the less interesting reading experience. Anyone has a memory on this book?
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jan 15, 2010 16:00:36 GMT -6
8-)OK let me do your homework as apparently you missed out on of the most interesting books on indian was or you thought the book had too many pages..
This book was written in 1882-1885 before wounded knee and before geronimo surrendered (even a suspense in the chapter on ol'jerome!).
You thought Dee Brown was the first to open the eyes of the general public on the bad treatment of the american ndn? Tis guy Jacob Dunn had the whole thing done 80 years before, before Wounded Knee! Exactly the same chapters as Brown who i suspect using the book as a matrice. Except for Brown neglecting the Piegans and the Maria River massacre & Dunn and Brown ignoring the Shoshones on the bear river with their 400 dead.
What i think is so great about this book and that you should read it if you did not :
-the guy "lived" the country where were held the battles : he describes all the streams, lushes, forests, prairies of any battle or historical place : he was there, he visited it all in my opinion -Dunn has a profound knowledge of NDN, amazing at that time : had a summary of any NDN culture, knew all the head men and knew their names in NDN (often more than 5 writings!) and in english -Dunn took a stand and wrote this book whilst all the actors were very much alive and kicking : how he deals with Howard and Miles after the Nez Perces debacle, just 1 year after their finally being homebound from indian territory He attacked in public any one who had any responsibilty in the treachery and mistreatment of the vanquished or in the breaking of treaties. Always states their fighting skills as superior to the white forces, except for the west coast tribes, when in combat, confirming my opinion that only other indians or treachery could do the job.
This book was hardcore, written whilst the newspapers after the massacres of ndns and settlers where still on the shelves and makes dee brown a sofite in my opinion, easy "60 politcial correct writing. off course before Dunn there had been Helen hunt Jackson and others to take a stand but he is the first to do a thorough historical job, incredible for that time.
Most of the times he sticks with the indians and condemns peace commissionners, gold diggers and indian agents. The army gets pretty well off, being only the poor executive force of poor politics (I think he overlooked the cases of sherman and sheridan but well..). Most astonishing that this guy who lived in colorado during the ute war has such a low opinion on settlers, who in his opinion were the main cause of all the trouble by settling within treaty boundaries and thus their deaths of their own fault whilst being ofen of the lowest kind (I resume : but this is also wolfy's theory and general crook > during my 27 years of experience with the indian question I have never known a band of Indians to make peace with the our government and then break it or leave their reservation without some ground of complaint< compares this to silly custer's theories in "my life on the plains")
Dunn is often verry funny in his writing and funny with his writing, i guess pretty modern at that time, (actually reminds me of DC minus the humane factor ;D) some examples :
"considering the professions that various indian commissioners have made, it is but too evident that the control of that department has been in the hands of either of men who stole the livery of Heaven to serve the Devil in or of arrant fools who have played upon like shepherds' pipes by the land grabbers, who have secured th spoils. For present purpose it is irrelevant which is the correct aternative."
"The Utes prided themselves on being peacable but their visits were regarded by settlers with the same dread that have esatern people of a camp of gypsies or a colony of tramps"
Dunn's common sense : "they (the utes) would not talk of selling land to people who would not pay for what they had allready bought" "off course they would not settle down to farming while they could live by hunting : that would be unnatural" on the rogue river indians dividing treaty payment per capita "an annual income of 2.75 dollar can hardly be considered a princely recompense for the surrender of a principality"
Anyway one of the greatest books i've ever red. Profound and astonishing on any page. Always weighing the pros and the cons, to balance who was right and who was wrong.
His resume of the little big horn is by the way 99% (except for the time schedule) similar to the main course of this board, so if you think you learn something new, first read his version it's all there already in 1883, 130 years of studying for zero progress ;D
Bear also in mind that he was the first of going through army archives at a time when there was no phone , internet or fax and i bet he visited on horseback most of the trails taken by chief joseph
The only errors I could pick out was the misjudgement on Sitting Bulls signing of the 1868 treaty (being mistaken with sitting bull the oglala) and the confusion with the piegan maria river massacre which was on the peacable Heavy Runner's camp that he has mistaken for red deer's, one of the hostiles with mountain chief : anyway he sticks to his point that the piegan war was unnecesary and stupid, always stays with .
Only thing that is weird and seen that you have not responded to my first post is how he treats the early cheyenne wars : the whole sand creek chapter is a defense of chivington and the cheyenne are the bad guys and the settlers and the army the nice guys, punishing those who deserved. Compared to the other chapters it is like he always goes into mainsteam thinking of his time, indeed a real weird chapter in an overall pro indian account (not pro indian but just seeing who did the rights and who did the wrongs according to treaties). I highly recommend this book , 130 year old.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 15, 2010 21:52:03 GMT -6
Wolfie, it has been many years since I read this book and while, from what I barely remember, Dunn was sympathetic to the Indian, he did not pull any punches regarding the barbarism of their attacks upon Anglos.
I'll have to dig it out and reread it but I think I can find as many derogatory statements about the Indians as I do about the Anglos. And trust me, there is no doubt that some of the Commissioners/Governors/Civilians on the Anglo side were enough to make anyone upchuck.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 16, 2010 7:59:18 GMT -6
Wolf: Any of those books say anything about my favorite NA tribe, the Hohs?
The Hohs need lovin too, ya know. Have you ever met a Hoh?
Let me know before the next full moon.
bc
|
|
|
Post by Rabble on Jan 17, 2010 3:57:38 GMT -6
Hi Billy If you wish to read "Massacres of the Mountains"again, it is now available for FREE download at www.archive.org/details/cihm_14112 OR you can buy a printed version on the Net for about $60. Regards Ron
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 17, 2010 4:58:27 GMT -6
Hi Billy If you wish to read "Massacres of the Mountains"again, it is now available for FREE download at www.archive.org/details/cihm_14112 OR you can buy a printed version on the Net for about $60. Regards Ron Rabble, thanks for the information but I have the Stackpole Frontier Classics edition which I picked up six or so years ago (and at a much lower price than $60!) A full downloadable version in either PDF or epup format is also available at Google Books. Which is another reason I am seriously considering getting an e-reader-not for new books but for all the free ones available at Google, etc. Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jan 17, 2010 17:25:37 GMT -6
Wolf: Any of those books say anything about my favorite NA tribe, the Hohs? The Hohs need lovin too, ya know. Have you ever met a Hoh? Let me know before the next full moon. bc well no bc, he does not write in this magnficent book that you ignore about the assiniboine as they were much busier with surviving smallpox and tribal warfare as with battles so little chance they could appear in an historical account of the 1800-1883 white-ndn campaigns
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jan 17, 2010 17:53:12 GMT -6
Wolfie, it has been many years since I read this book and while, from what I barely remember, Dunn was sympathetic to the Indian, he did not pull any punches regarding the barbarism of their attacks upon Anglos. Billy Well billy I have it fresh in mind as I finished it recently the almost 800 pages and i don't think he is pro indian really but more pro justice. He often uses the expression 'savages" and mostly writes they should change religion and hobbys and go to work instead of hang loose and hunt. He is only a profound seeker of truth and justice. And takes it to an amazing level in my opinion critisizing politicians, army chiefs, newspapers, indian agents, just a few years or even while they were on it and alive. As for the settlers as for indians, after an over all reading it appears to me he is doing the same on both sides. Indians that get hung for killing settlers are fine with him but so are settlers being killed when settling on indian treaty lands. He does not have a very high opinion of the populations at early periods in any state that were merely outcast, golddiggers and outlaws in his opinion often, and he speaks first hand when he describes the ute problem in Colorado where he was living. In his opinion everyone should respect treaties and the words given. That's why he get's so upset with Chief Joseph and the unkept promises by Howard and Miles etc. The book was well received at that time, breaking in my view another cliché that it took 1973 to have people see the indian side : in my version there are prints of letters of Th Roosevelt, highly admiring the work of Dunn. Foremost I think it is so admirable that someone in 1883 does so much research, has to travel 1000 miles to get to an archive, takes several months for what we can find in minutes clicking on the internet but still comes up with better conclusions. When he comes up with a tribe he gives you at least 5 names under which they were known, same for the head men, all their names in english, indian, and spanish if necesssary. never seen so much information gathered ; it is easy when you write only on the LBH and be precise, when it is a global work embrasing 100 years and 100 wars with a 100 tribes and a 1000 chiefs, it is a little harder.. On the LBH campaign he blames neither Custer nor Benteen nor Reno. He concludes it was all a question of lack of information on the numbers of indians which he states 1500 (!) in 1883 (well well) and has also an ambuscade theory of hiding warriors in mass to draw Reno as well as GAC into the village. Anyway this book is called the best single work on the indian wars of the american west.
|
|