5 Comments

These books are meant to be seen not read.

Expand full comment

I also read David Treuer's review in the New Yorker, and had similar concerns. Perhaps Treuer's own book, "The Heartbreak of Wounded Knee," provides some clues. My main takeaway was Treuer's almost desperate desire for native peoples to be seen as canny survivors, not as victims. Your timely column will make me finally get around to reading "Autumn of the Black Snake," which I bought months ago. One more thought - I found Graeber & Wendat's "The Dawn of Everything" a revelation on native history in North America.

Expand full comment

Have you read Hämäläinen’s Lakota book? It’s been on my radar but I haven’t read it. It seems likely that it avoids some of these issues by being more focused.

Expand full comment

The entire "empire" framing of both the Comanche and Lakota books seems bizarre to me; this review by a Lakota historian sums up many of my concerns. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/803797/pdf

Anthropological differences are absolutely crucial if we are to write a book that is more than just a rehash of 120-year-old military histories. Besides Bill's books, two that stand out to me are "The City-State of Boston: The Rise and Fall of an Atlantic Power" (2019) which does a fantastic job explaining why wampum is not money, and "Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Philip’s War" (2018) which laid out the matriarchal side of Narragansett kinship, the one the WSJ reviewer is looking for. Both are genuinely compelling narratives, compared to Hämäläinen. Neither book got reviewed in any national newspapers. Who knows how these things work? Not sure I want to accept Bill's argument that the purpose of these books is to put the reader to sleep but uh...

Expand full comment