At any rate my forbear ultimately made his choice, a stern young woman named Rebecca, whom he married in 1861. Shortly after that he and three brothers were conscripted by force into the Confederate Army: the 35th Arkansas Regiment. They served grudgingly, to say the least, until during the middle of January in 1863 one of the brothers was killed. It's not clear whether he died during a battle, but at any rate the three surviving brothers decided they'd had enough fighting for the Confederacy, and lit out with the army in hot pursuit. And I do mean hot. Apparently one of the three, John, was wounded during the chase and died a short time later at his home, at the age of 18. Two of their sisters, ages 16 and 17, were apparently killed during the same violent encounter with the Confederate establishment, but he and Rebecca escaped and headed to Washington State, where they became homesteaders. My grandfather said that the old fellow was "the most hard working man I have ever known." My guess is that he wasn't exaggerating, and that my great great grandfather was really running from that disaster he had barely escaped, for the rest of his life. No doubt he considered hard work a small price to pay.
There's a lot to this story, and I suspect it's not atypical. It's paralleled by many others of the time, but there really isn't much grist for a "politically correct" yarn. When you look at pictures of Joseph and Rebecca it's clear that they were rather stern folk to say the least. Their religion is listed in a number of documents as "evangelical," so I don't imagine that would pass Hollywood's ancestral heroes standard either. And though "decent," the life they led was hardly idyllic. Homesteaders of that era tended to just work themselves to death... which is what one had to do just to keep from going under. One could lose everything with a single bad crop. There aren't many people around now with much appreciation for what that was like, but I know a few hippies who tried homesteading in the '60s and they starved and froze for over a decade before they achieved any sort of stability in their lives. And homesteading in the 1860s must have been considerably more difficult than homesteading in the 1960s, one would imagine.
This is not the stuff of which great PC myths are made. Nor did my great great grandfather desert the Confederacy out of any sense of affiliation for the noble Union cause, although it was no accident that the South filled its ranks with abductees. That was, after all, the nature of the virus. (It's what the "insurgents" are currently doing in Iraq.) Of late the fashion has been to paint the Confederacy in mellower tones, if only to avoid the implication that there's such a thing as a "just war." How convenient. If we understood the Civil War on this level it would become difficult to avoid comparing the anti-war Democrats of that day, the Copperheads, with our present antiwar movement. And it would be impossible to avoid the insight that both seem to suffer from the same lack of moral clarity about the great evil of their own era. There is simply no way to give this story the PC slant it needs, without perpetrating a deep lie.
1
Dude, you said it.
What's the deal in all the movies that the Crow are the bad guys but the Lacota are the good guys? Seriously.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 20, 2005 09:08 AM (JQjhA)
2
I don't know why the Crow are always the bad guys. But I remember a linguistics professor at the Univ of Kansas that I met once. We were joking about letting the Sioux and the Crow man the nuclear missle silos in the northern plains, since they lived there anyway. We were just being silly. Then he said it would never work, because the first thing the Sioux would do is nuke the Crow. And this was in the 1980s.
Posted by: Scott in CA at June 20, 2005 09:54 AM (rF49i)
3
It's as if the Sioux have a better propaganda machine than the Crow. In the mini-series when the protaganist Sioux find every one in the village massacred they say it was the Crow and how they regretted that the Crow were 'forcing' war between the two nations. As if the Sioux were just these innocent victims not doing the same thing to the Crow.
Same thing happens in Dances with Wolves.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 20, 2005 10:13 AM (JQjhA)
4
The Sioux have a much better propoganda machine. In South Dakota, there is no Columbus day, instead they celebrate Native American day.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 10:22 AM (jPCiN)
5
The Indians in general have had a better propaganda machine for the last few decades. They've always painted themselves (no pun intended) as the innocent victims and whites as always the vicious agressors. Whites were generally isolated from one another and would usually only band together to attack Indians after they had massacred some whites. The Indians didn't understand the concept of individual punishment, so if they felt aggrieved, they would attack any whites around, guilty of transgression or not. Well, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, so whites adopted the policy of collective punishment, and seeing as how whites were much better at warfare, the Indians didn't fare well under this policy. Many wrongs were done on both sides, and many innocent people died on both sides, but it's purely liberal propaganda to depict the Indians as some sort of peaceful social-ist, (damn the spam filter),utopians. Real history disagrees.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 11:36 AM (0yYS2)
6
The Crow are hated now primarily because they sided with the whites early on. As the saying goes, "the Lakota won the glory, the Cheyenne won the battles, and the Crow won the land."
They've always been an exceedingly prideful people, with a sense of destiny approaching that of religious fervor. Where those Plains tribes regarded property in terms of traditional migration routes & herds, the Crow looked upon the land as their own empire, at least potentially.
Which brings up one of the bothersome fallacies about native Americans: Its taught they didn't have a sense of personal property, especially as regards land. That wasn't precisely so. Different tribes had different regard on that subject. The Iroquois & many east coasters had well-developed ideas of boundaries & land ownership, for example. All tribes recognized certain lands as belonging to certain tribes, especially holy sites and burial grounds.
Posted by: urthshu at June 20, 2005 12:10 PM (2qJi3)
7
Stephen Spielberg's movies are almost without exception long (sometimes very long) on PC fiction and short on historical fact.
Homesteading was very tough. If the Indians did not kill you the dificulty of farming in what were out of the way places likely would. I am the son of the son of a failed homesteader. I understand that "old timers" tend to exagerate (after all I'm now an oldtimer) but my granparents had some hairraising tales of their years on the homestead. I never had a problem with them giving up. I think they were lucky to have got out alive.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at June 20, 2005 01:43 PM (cTkez)
8
The problem with Hollywood and any movies based off anything,
(history, novels, games)is that no Director, scriptwriter, or
producer can only read the back cover, or they have to add their own ego into the movie. My case and point, Two Towers, movie 2 of Lord of the Rings books. The book cleary states the Ents are slow, through
thinkers, and they vote yes to go to war. The movie, No we are peaceful, shit they cut down our trees, lets kill them all. Or
in the book, 1 and only 1 elf in Helm's deep. The movie, Legolas
bred like the bunny, because there was a whole mess of elves there.
Posted by: Butch at June 20, 2005 02:37 PM (Gqhi9)
9
The biggest slaughter of Indians in history is when the tribes were moved to Oaklahoma, either given or stole guns and commenced killing their age old enemies. Other Indians.
Truth is Indians are wealthier and doing better now than any time in history. Think about what life must have been like before the white man's entrance to the new world. No horses for thousands of years to hunt buffalo. No metal knifes to cut them up with. No wheels, no central government to ensure justice. No domesticated animals. Might was right. The biggest and meanest tribe received the best and killed the rest. Tools were pointed sticks and rocks tied to sticks.
And worse. No firewater to forget your miserable existence.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 24, 2005 10:02 PM (CBNGy)
10
I don't think anyone can portray any one family's own history into this diversified land. I believe he is trying to show what the history books often left out, even more so today with textbook publishers wanting to be politically correct and not offend children with ethnics and glossed over to make the struggles and hardship of all peoples of that time seem trivial. They skirt around war and all pictures of anything that might be offensive. They even doctor historical paintings and photos to edit out "offensive" images. I know. I have done history books for these publishers. Some are so far off the mark they get sued and have to be reprinted. They all make it sound like it was pleasant. All immigrants faced hatred from whites (chinese, Irish, etc.) and we were always portrayed as civilized and all knowing with little tolerance to other cultures including Native Americans. It is rare today for anyone to attempt to show how hard life was back then. Our history books rarely tell of native american victories and how family was as important to them as us. Lives were lost merely attemting to get out west much less for those who made it to face the hatred between whites and Indians. Remember the Donner party? Few textbooks today bother to tell that gruesome story to illustrate it wasn't a piece of cake.
All tribes in America suffered and lost much from us. We brought death by sickness such as smallpox and cholera. Pioneers are glorified in our textbooks and yet his is the first attempt to paint it as it might have been—our written words today make it sound like hop in a wagon and find land or gold. Easy as pie. Get wealthy. Live weatlhy. Die of old age. It's not how it happened. They rarely try to show the hardships or tell it like it was for fear of stepping on someone's toes or offending some race. Give it a break. Why does everyone have to read more into it than it is? It is more accurate than our current textbooks. Hollywood rarely tackles anything totally the way we think it should be done. Give credit where credit is due. They are at least attemting to show how the real west was for most—brutal, unforgiving, heartwrenching and beautiful. I like the way it encompasses many sides and circles in and out of a family who is mostly strong and good. Jethro robbed the chinese but Abe befriended them. Not likely real in history or most family's but it attempts to weave an accurate picture of life back then for everyone. It recounts more accurately how the west was than our glossed over textbooks who ignore the injustices of many immigrants and the end of the native american ways. I often wish they had won as we have devasted the earth and pushed animals to extinction. No one culture has all the right answers and no show can portray everything as each of us may percieve how it was very differently. I applaud them for their efforts as generations get more removed from the reality because of idealized (politically correct) versions of our history. Thank god they are not like Harcourt and other publishers of school books who don't dare tell it like it was for fear of offending someone. I missed the first episode but I love this series. At least someone has the balls to try—why must everyone be so cynical? I too know tribes fought each other and had many different cultures and laws across th e Americas. Noone can tell everything in such a short series. I think they make it more realistic and are trying to show it was tough for all. Our history books only show our side of it. It's long over due for all sides to be portrayed more accurately. Noone can do a perfect job but it's damn time we tried. I love it. I know it's not real but I can look past that and see someone has at least the guts to try to show us how it must have been. Roots was probably not totally accurate either but people embraced it for what it was meant to show—a part of our history that was not pretty and "sanitized" in our textbooks. Even more so today. History is history and from ancient Rome to Greece to Britain and America—other people conquer and enslaved. It seems to be mans nature. You don't see then covering up for Atilla the Hun or Ceasar so why reinvent our history and heritage? You all can be cynical—I love it. I feel for all as it was not an easy life for any of our ancestors. I'm sorry I missed the first episode and I got on here to see if I could get it without commercials. I love it. I love it.
Posted by: marcie at July 18, 2005 12:22 AM (rnjau)
11
I was deeply moved, though I already knew about Wounded Knee and the schools, etc.
what happened to Native Americans at the hands of "pioneers" (thieves?) should never, never be forgotten. (i am of pioneer stock, jewish stock and little Native Amercian stock as well)
Like the Holocaust, the message about the bloody consequences of intolerance, greed and lust for power and control should be forever branded on our hearts.
Slice it anyway you want, Native Americans as a whole were robbed at gunpoint. And we were all robbed of the wisdom and spiritual power that could have benefitted all.
Posted by: sylvia at July 25, 2005 10:29 AM (iYZGz)
12
Sylvia:
Slice it anyway you want, Native Americans as a whole were robbed at gunpoint. And we were all robbed of the wisdom and spiritual power that could have benefitted all.
And how do you know this? I submit that what informs you is just the most recent Hollywoodized version of this history, which is probably no more an accurate characterization of what happened than the earlier one showing native Americans as the villains. By the way, native Americans typically hold the oldest and highest priority water rights in the Western US, which were orginally based on "prior use." (Water rights in the eastern US are based on the riparian principle, which is based on property proximity rather than use.)
Posted by: Demosophist at July 25, 2005 10:51 AM (IbWE6)
13
Look I am no Native American so my view is purely white. I am glad he did this series. Get over the Crow are portrayed as badguys "again" bullsheet you are only looking as far as your egotistical noses.
Nobody teaches kids in school that the propaganda of the white man and his arrogence slaughtered "savages" and STOLE this country based on lies and greed. Murdered and lied, and destroyed, and wasted things like the Indians and the Buffalo and on and on. I was blown away last night in the finale as it totally reminded me of Iraq today. Media says OOH big scary arabs, and the weak minded idiots go OOh NO ok kill them!! F@cking pathetic. I was thinking to myself,.."No wonder we just march in and waste who we want, our fathers and their fathers set the precidence."
White people suck man but hey what are you gunna do. Try to learn from it I guess.
Just an opinion-
Posted by: B at July 25, 2005 01:56 PM (LJK0r)
14
I was blown away last night in the finale as it totally reminded me of Iraq today. Media says OOH big scary arabs, and the weak minded idiots go OOh NO ok kill them!!
Well gee, I guess that allays my concern that this was just more anti-American Hollywood propaganda. Isn't it funny how every time these stories are retold they seem to embody whatever proximate gripe the left seems to have at the time?
I mean, never mind that we're actually supporting the majority of Arabs and Kurds to build a decent law-abiding and free society, or that the minority we're fighting actually are a bit scary and nasty with that whole dull-knife-head-sawing thing they do. Oh, I'm sorry, were you trying to sound rational? Oops!
Posted by: Demosophist at July 25, 2005 02:11 PM (IbWE6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment