Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)Gary C. Anderson is an expert on Dakota/Sioux history. His doctoral dissertation, published under the title "Kinsmen of Another Kind," discussed Dakota/White relations from the 17th to the 19th century. In "Through Dakota Eyes," Anderson collected dozens of Indian narratives concerning the 1862 Dakota uprising in Southeastern Minnesota. This book, "Little Crow: Spokesman for the Sioux," finds Anderson delving deep into the archives in order to present a better picture of that enigmatic Dakota chief Taoyateduta, known to history as Little Crow.
The main thesis of Anderson's "Kinsmen of Another Kind" was the importance of kinship ties within the Dakota tribes as well as with outsiders. Traders formed kinship ties with the Dakota because the ties allowed the traders to use the Dakotas to gather furs for them. Dakotas benefited from kinship ties because the ties involved gift giving. Whites had to give gifts to the Dakotas if they wanted to maintain trade and relations. As more and more whites moved into the region, kinship ties slowly disintegrated because whites no longer needed to deal with the Dakotas on an equal basis. It is important to understand these kinship ties when reading "Little Crow," as Anderson again makes these relationships central to his study.
Anderson begins his biographical analysis of Little Crow with an overview of Dakota culture. According to Anderson, it is impossible to understand anything about Little Crow's life and actions unless we understand his cultural underpinnings. Anderson discusses hunting, gift giving, medicine sacks and medicine societies, Dakota religion, and the role of a chief in Dakota society (chiefs, according to Anderson, held little actual power over the warriors; it was the position of speaker that held greater power, something Little Crow found out when he led the Dakota warriors during the 1862 uprising).
Little Crow's life is truly fascinating. Anderson discusses in great depth the role of Little Crow's grandfather and father in their relations with the Americans at Fort Snelling. Little Crow's grandfather and father took an accommodationist stance towards white encroachment on Dakota lands, trying to toe the fine line between keeping the Dakota people happy while dealing with the whites. Anderson argues that Little Crow, despite the bad reputation he earned due to the uprising, was an accommodationist just like his father and grandfather. Time and time again, Little Crow worked with the white Indian agents and soldiers to try and benefit his people. Little Crow was intimately involved in signing several treaties with the government, worked hard to placate the government after the Inkpaduta affair of 1857, and tried to prevent war in 1862. That Little Crow failed in his dealings with the government and failed to stop the uprising is certainly a tragedy, but should not overshadow his attempts to do the right thing for his people. Ultimately, no Dakota leader could have prevented the coming doom.
Little Crow is best known for the destructive war against whites in 1862. Anderson covers the war and its aftermath in succinct detail. Actually, this may be the best account of the war I have read. Anderson discusses Little Crow's failure to successfully organize his warriors, his failure to gain support with mixed-blood and Upper Agency Indians, and his failure to form an Indian alliance during his exile in North Dakota and Canada. When Little Crow returned to Minnesota in 1863, he knew his time was short. Little Crow died from a gunshot wound while picking berries with his son. Little Crow's remains, horribly mutilated by angry whites, ended up on display at the Minnesota Historical Society until the 1970's, when they were finally given a proper burial.
Anderson claims that Little Crow was an opportunist, a scheming sort of politician who always helped out because he wanted to elevate his own position within Dakota society. Anderson cites as evidence newspaper interviews with Little Crow which revealed Little Crow's propensity for pithy statements and his need for constant attention. That Little Crow had a knack for oratory should come as no surprise; he was a chief, and chiefs constantly debated issues with other leaders in the tribe. But is Little Crow a politician? I don't think so, at least not in the way we perceive the term. Is it possible that newspaper and other white accounts of the time framed Little Crow in terms whites understood? After all, documents show that many whites had no real conception about the true nature of Indians in the 19th century. White relations with Indians were based on a fundamental set of assumptions, most of them racist and false. To paint Little Crow as a sort of Huey Long type teeters dangerously close to error. After all, Dakota culture emphasized communitarian values, not the sort of individualistic elevation Anderson says Little Crow sought.
Anderson ends the book with an appendix discussing Little Crow's genealogy. This section is the most difficult part of the book due to the intricate relationships within Indian families and tribes. Terms like "father" and "cousin" do not carry the same connotation in Indian culture as they do in ours. A father's brothers can all be "fathers" to an Indian, and "cousins" are even more convoluted. A genealogical chart of Little Crow's family at the back of the book makes a medieval royal house look like a nuclear family. These genealogies are necessary to back up Anderson's claim that kinship is central to tribal life.
This is a scholarly book that manages to entertain while it teaches. It is definitely a must have for those seeking a deeper understanding of the Dakota tribes, or for those interested in the Minnesota uprising of 1862. If you don't come away with some sense of admiration for Little Crow, despite his failures, you did not read the same book I did.
Click Here to see more reviews about:
Little Crow: Spokesman For The SiouxGovernment officials and missionaries wanted all Siouxmen to become self-sufficient farmers, wear pants, and cut their hair.The Indians, confronted by a land-hungry white population and a lossof hunting grounds, sought to exchange title to their homeland forannuities of cash and food, schools and teachers, and farms andagricultural knowledge.By 1862 the Sioux realized that theirextensive kinship network and religion were in jeopardy and that thegovernment would not fulfill its promises.With their way of life endangered, the Sioux turned to LittleCrow to lead them in a war for self-preservation, a war that LittleCrow had tried to avoid during most of his adult life.Within a year,the Sioux had been evicted from Minnesota, Little Crow was dead, and away of life had vanished.Through his life-his biography-the complexinterrelationship of Indian and white can be studied and, in somemeasure, understood.
Click here for more information about Little Crow: Spokesman For The Sioux
