The Autobiography of Red Cloud was a good read. The book was very informative to native american life. However, as some had pointed out earlier, some of the stories may not be as factual as others and some parts could just be made up due to the passing down of stories from one person to the next.

There is an interesting bias towards the native americans in the book. MOst of the stories were, to my liking, concentrated around the battles that the indians fought in. The indians are portayed as finding fun in fighting. Also focus is on the killing of members of other tribes. This is stereotyped as barbaric.

One aspect of tribal life in the book that appealed to me was the community that existed within the tribe. The leader seemed to be in the mix within the tribe and the tribe mixing in with the leader. Everyone realizes that they are made better by helping each other out rather than an individualistic attitude. Our society should be taking notes from these guys.

i really enjoyed the great detail given in each little "scene" of the book. overall a good easy read and i did learn a lot because i really did not know really anything about the native americans before reading this book.

I, like many of my classmates, enjoyed The Autobiography of Red Cloud. It was an easy read and very interesting. I will agree with Mike and others who say that Allen (the origional author) wrote with a bias toward Native Americans, or so it seems at least. He concerns himself only with inter-tribe warfare and the celebrations which followed triumphant battle (and boy, they partied a lot). Allen did not talk about the everyday life of Red Cloud, but rather battles in which he played a key role. I wonder...how else would one write about the war leader of the Oglalas? You can't just say something like "Thursday, Red Cloud finished making a bowl and decorated it with tribal colors." Nobody would care. You have to talk about what was important to Red Cloud, and that was warfare. I don't know, these are just thoughts.

I do think that Allen and Paul show somewhat of an understanding of Native American culture (at least in this aspect) when they discuss honor. An example is a battle in which Red Cloud and others are fighting the Crows. "Red Cloud...struck three of the prostrated Crows with his bow, but killed none of them, for the reason that among the Indians, more bravery is considered to be displayed by striking a living enemy that by killing him" (42). It is very strange that we receive this account, and then later learn of some of the many gruesome things Red Cloud did, such as cutting the arm off of a Snake after killing him (145). This is a mixed message, which I really don't understand. Reguardless, I really enjoyed the book.

 My first reaction to reading Red Cloud's autobiography is exactly like Nathan's feelings. Any time a narrative of such importance or magnitude is translated and recorded by an individual outside of a community like Red Clouds' I feel we all need to be very cautious with how we view this book. I also feel that the simplistic nature of the writings is a combination of not only Allen's attempt to make the Indians appear inferior, but also Allen's own limitations with recording a fully detailed translation from his interviews with Red Cloud. Even though I was able to enjoy some of the passages of the narrative dealing with the various battles, I wish the book was a more definitive source of information relating to Native American interaction with not only other tribes, but also the advancing white settlers since I am not very familiar with these topics. I do not think it is fair to judge the merit of a book based on my own shortcomings, however I feel I would have benefited more from a book that provided more historical references and factual assertions than are present in the autobiography. With some of the other books we have read that provided more stories instead of real facts and events I was able to enjoy the books more since I already had a previous understanding of the situations in that time period through either my own knowledge or what we have discussed in this class. In conclusion, this autobiography needs to be read with great caution since Allen does not do an incredible job of providing an unbiased opinion. Yet I do have a feeling that this narrative is in enjoyable with the proper amount of background knowledge on the subject. I could see myself reading this book again, just not with for a scholastic purpose.

The Late Night Message (Medicine?) Man
We really rag on our country and for good reason. I heard once if we wish to befriend Native Americans, we have to acknowledge that our country broke over 250 treaties with the American Indians. One thing we've been missing in this course is something more than a sheet of events that discusses Indian removal. We live in a country that may parade freedom and liberty but has committed some undeniably inhumane racist actions: enslavement of blacks, concentration camps for the Japanese during WWII, and Indian Removal throughout the 19th century are some examples. Similar to America (not the same), though, Native Americans also go to war for territorial expansion, the greater slaughtering the weaker. From what we see here, these men weren't the most "negotiating" of peoples.

One thing I Gladly don't see much of is sold out individualism among these tribes. (Well, if you exclude the Black Eagle conspiracies). There seems to be a general acceptance and encouragement emanating from the tribe to the leader and from the leader to the tribe. I don't know much at all of Native American anthropology, what can you tell us Dr. Benson? It's always seemed rather communal and family-oriented to me, at least within the tribe. We could learn a lot from that these days. Our families are being destroyed by individualism.

Paul tells us this narrative depicts a "vigorous" and "warrior"-like Red Cloud, one unlike what most whites came to know as an "accomodating politician." (26) Though the pages are bloody with fierceness of fighting, p. 70 and elsewhere still portrays his diplomatic deftness in extinguishing the "smoldering embers of resentment in the Cut-Off band." He was able to unite Sioux forces and challenge the despotism of the United States. Kudos Mr. Cloud.

random note: Just as the tribal consumer desire led them into inter-tribal wars (the book tells us that battles between tribes often came hunters trespassed into other territories), consumer desire with the gold rush brought Americans into conflicts with the American Indians.

Finally, I still don't understand Ch. 15's battle with the Arapahos tribe, because the author lists the Arapahos as a Lakota ally (5). What gives here?

I have extremely mixed emotions about The Autobiography of Red Cloud. To be honest, my first reaction, after just completing the book was "how boring." Story after story of this tribe battling that tribe, this warrior slaughtering that warrior, and so on and so forth. I know that war isn't really my thing, but wow, could we be a little more gruesome? The only happy moments throughout the whole novel were when warriors gained honor or tribes were victorious. I just saw the story as fairly repetitive and that made me kind of uninterested.
So after reading the book, I started to think about what I could post besides "I thought it was boring." And the first thing that came to me was the ways in which the Native Americans were depicted. I totally agreed with Nathan's post in that the way in which the different tribes were portrayed was extremely degrading and almost dehumanizing. I think part of the reason that I felt that the book was repetitive was because the Native Americans seemed to be "barbaric" as they waged war against each other for no reason other than the other tribe was weaker. Now, obviously that cant be the whole story, so I looked more closely at the introduction and found that Red Cloud's story must have gone through at least 5 or 6 people before it actually got printed. That fact answers a lot of questions as to why the Native Americans were portrayed in the light that they were and why, if you look close enough, there are slight "white supremacy" undertones. The role of media and marketing definitely had a lot to do with how this book was written and how certain people were portrayed. But then again, what book isn't?
Lastly, I would just like to say that I thought Paul made a really good point. Until I read his post, I was convinced that if the editor had just added more about the daily life of the Native Americans, the book would be a lot more insightful and interesting. But now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't have made that big of a difference. This book caters to those historians interested in the battles of Red Cloud and his people, not the wood collecting or basket weaving. Just because it didn't make it to my top ten list doesn't mean that it isn't #1 on somebody else's. That's definitely something important to always keep in mind.

When I read over my message, I think I was too strongly against the bias. It is there. I just don't think it is as critical as most of the others thus far have.

I'll begin by saying I thought it was cool. I didn't realize we had it assigned until I got back here, so I sat down to read it and I enjoyed it. Maybe that says something bad about me...

I agree that the book shows a bias against the Indians, though I'm not sure I agree in some ways as to the bias shown.

First, there is the argument that it is bias that Allen ignores the day to day actions of an Indian. But this is not bias, but two other things:
1. Tailoring the work to meet the demands of the public, who, frankly, are not going to buy a tale of the day to day goings on of an Indian, male or female. War stories are far more palatable, not because of the blood, but because of the emotions involved: heroism, revenge, loyalty, pride, not to mention the intrigue of mini-nations involved in incessant low-intensity warfare.
2. Telling the story of the person whose story it is. When war correspondents followed soldiers around in the Second World War, they reported on the combat, the letters, and other notable events, not the day to day rations, digging, and marching, even though those mundane activities took up most of the soldier's work. The soldier was a soldier because of the events, not because of the normal activity. Just so, Red Cloud is a cheiftain, a war leader, and though he assuredly led another life aside from combat situations, those were the things that made him.

Second, the idea that the bias of Allen caused him to omit things, such as the childhood of Red Cloud.
I do not think this was Allen's choice--if Red Cloud had given him information on his childhood, he probably would have put it down--I am actually surprised he didn't make up more than he did to fill in the vast void up until that first foray.

Do y'all really think that Red Cloud thought the important things to him were tent building and wood collecting? I doubt Allen had to do much to the story. If I were Red Cloud, I would tell the same stories he did--those are the things that made him.

Aside from that, I also noticed the idea that Allen uses the stories to reinforce a bias that the Indian tribes are savages. This is probably true, though I noticed descriptions here and there of relations between tribes or between warriors in a tribe that seemed to draw off "civilized" relationships between nations. Did anyone else read the introductions to sections about warfare between the Sioux and this tribe or that tribe and immediately think of the bickering of nation-states? Perhaps he did not intend it, but I ended up seeing the Oglalas and the other tribes as Western peoples again, just in a different place, which led me to think that maybe all humanity is sorta similar along certain lines--that parallels exist across the board, and the bias one has against another is found within itself.

I think I should clarify myself a little bit. I think that the most important aspect of the book to realize is the slant with which Allen, the original author, wrote it with. The violence, seemingly trivial and random, is most likely wildly overemphasised. While it may have been the key to status in the indian cultures, Allen makes it seem like random acts of violence for purely personal gain only.
As Nathan said, the key to this book is who tells the history. That's generally what I was trying to say before, but I don't know how well I managed that.

Autobiography of Red Cloud was one of the easiest reads I've had in a long time. It was easy to follow, but is there a reason for that? Was this Allen's way of trying to say that he was superior to Red Cloud? Just a random thought that came to me as I was typing...

Like Mike and Lindsay, I was startled at the violence and brutality that was included in this book. I guess I was more startled, not by its presence, but by the way it was depicted. Red Cloud and his fellow Sioux are made to look like barbarous savages who delight in murder. It is impossible to know if Red Cloud described the violence and ;eft out the details of camp life, or if those omiisions were made by Allen. A few passages about brutality were especially strong : Red Cloud stabs a man to death (51); White Horse scalps a man alive (103); Red Cloud dismembers a man he killed (145).

This was the first Native American autobiography I have read. It was quite different from anything I've ever read

Edited by author 12-01-2002 10:48 PM
      The Autobiography of Red Cloud reveals several key insights about Native American literature and culture. Here are a couple on my list:

      1. The concept of “who defines history” has once again embarked us through this narrative, a collection of stories told by Red Cloud but recorded and interpreted by Charles Allen and Sam Deon, white frontiersmen who merely lived among the Sioux for some years. Obviously, the majority of Native Americans were not literate in the English language, and the historical world only has the words of non-Native Americans to explain the activities and lifestyles of the former group. The prejudices and subjective insights are clear. The work describes, at several points during the book, “savages” with “barbarous” rites and “inhumane” practices. Lacking both decency and taste, the narrators illustrate the mourning of the families who lost loved ones in tribal battles as being filled with “weird, pathetic cries” (p.38). A misunderstanding of the subjects’ culture and a sometimes indecent interpretation of such elements does little to effectively describe the lives of Red Cloud and his Sioux family. Yet it is through these ethnocentric eyes that we as readers see all we can see. If it is any wonder as to why Native Americans have been constantly degraded in history, add this type of narrative to the list of reasons; it only shows that even the greatest attempts by white men to portray sensitive descriptions of the Indian life and people failed to do their job.

      2. It is clear that in our industrialized nation, we do not empathize with a tribal culture. I say this because as I was reading the biography, I developed a lessened sympathy for the Native American population within the United States historical realm and a greater feeling of impartiality to the white man’s invasion of their lands. Please do not throw the stones yet. I do sympathize with the persecuted, and I find myself usually rooting for the underdog in most situations. But after the reading, I see that the European invasion onto Native American land and the eventual destruction of Native American culture followed in line with the way the Sioux and many other tribes were already living. It was not uncommon in the reading to see examples of the strong surviving; Red Cloud and his tribesmen often stole horses and killed rival tribesmen for no other apparent reason than selfish motivation and material gain. According to the book’s descriptions, these raids were not even necessary to the Oglalas’ survival. The book even mentioned that the Crows, a weak tribe, were often picked on and raided, not because they had inflicted harm on or made threats to anyone, but simply because they were an easy target. I find it hard to sympathize with such illustrations that lead me to believe many Native American cultures survived and thrived on the same morals that early American settlers and frontiersmen did – survival of the fittest, no matter what it takes, and getting as much wealth as one could grab along the way. To me, there is no difference in Red Cloud telling another tribe to pack up and move and the American government telling Red Cloud to do the same. There is no difference between the unnecessary Oglala rustler or scalper and a European who swindles or destroys an entire Native American village.
     
      Overall, I did enjoy the readings. It was nice to not worry as much about a historian’s particular analysis of an event and instead be allowed to enjoy the true beauty of history – the stories. They were entertaining, adventurous, and easy to follow, and if Red Cloud would have scripted them himself, they would have been even better.

Unlike Mike, I found this book informative and entertaining. However, I found it entertaining for the sole reason that it was an easy-to-follow anthology of stories told in a fashion that is reminiscent of what you could find in short movies. Most of all, it was an easy read.

Despite the overall entertainment that I found in this book, it remained an informative historical account of the lives of Indians in the 1800s. As Mike pointed out, some of the stories are not exactly factual and parts could be made up thanks to the two other hands through which the stories of Red Cloud passed before finally reaching print. But, this book does give the reader a better glimpse into the lives of Indians that is not available in other books.

What I find MOST interesting, however, I did not realize until Mike pointed it out in his post. This is Allen's bias towards the Indians. The majority of the stories do center around the actual fighting and raids in which the Indians took part and not nearly as much attention is focused on the life in the camp. The Indians are shown as liking fighting and finding entertainment in this act. On another note, from an outsider perspective, a great deal of the fights are spent on the actual killing (i.e. scalping, etc.) of individuals of the alternate tribe. To some readers, this could represent the Indians in a sort of barbaric form. From Allen's point of view, do barbarians enjoy fighting? Maybe it's just my own wandering mind on this topic, but I think that it could be an interesting thought to investigate further.

Overall, I thought that the book was a fun and fairly easy read, but it contained a far more intellectual and informative core than the general appearance of the words on the page may suggest.

I really didn't like the Red Cloud book very much. Well, I guess it mostly frustrated me, more than anything else. I wanted to know what the overall story was, and he simply gave too many specifics. I really don't see how this could be used as anything other than just a preliminary outline of events that happened at some point in the past.

Despite my lack of entusiasm for the book as a whole, I did manage to find plenty of interesting passages. It is clear to see that Allen was biased against indians. I mean, it's not too surprising, considering when he was writing, but he really makes everything seem so simple and childlike. For instance, on page 47, Allen wrote, "the Sioux, deciding that they had had recreation enough, declined these proffered courtesies." Was this fighting really recreation? I doubt it. Maybe the point wasn't to kill the others, but it really didn't seem like a game to Red Cloud and the others. They were serious political and intratribal issues that determined status and power.

Maybe the most important to realize about this book is it's unreasonable bias against the indians it is based on. I can see how it would be very difficult to find out what really happened when the indians giving the stories were hesitant to discuss points of their lives, and what they did talk about was just twisted to make it seem trivial and childlike. It's really too bad how pathetic Allen makes the indians seem, and I guess that is really the point of the book.

One more thing, the little intro things before each chapter. What is the point. Other than a few times where they explained why like certain guns were present, even though it would seem unlikely that they would be in indian hands at that point of time. Other than that kind of stuff, they are pretty worthless. It is like reading Dante's Inferno, with the descriptions before each canto. Except in this case, it isn't difficult to understand the actual text. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like those were only there for the current author, Paul, to actually say something.

So, I guess, interesting, yes. Informative, somewhat. Read again, no.

I thoroughly enjoyed the somewhat scattered format of Red Cloud's narrative(s). Despite the constant debate over accuracy and honesty, I chose not to worry so much about form as I did substance. I was struck most by the detail involved in each little episode. Red Cloud always seemed to point out how many people were involved, what the prevalent feelings were, and what exactly the landscape looked like. The numerous tales provide a great glimpse into the very core values of Native American life. Bravery was considered paramount, and honor was held in very high esteem. I must say, going back to the form/accuracy issue, that I was not so fond of the latter sections in which Samuel Deon gets more and more coverage. It seems as if he almost wanted to slide in and become the central character of the tale; the book began to detail his actions as thoroughly as Red Cloud's. Finally, I was intrigued by the episode in which the Sioux and--I think it was the Crow--participated in a sort of "play fight", knowing that in the specific battle death was not either side's intent. When juxtaposed with the Native American ideas about honorable death and justified murder, this notion of playful fighting presents quite a paradox. Evidently, the bounds for when killing was OK and when it was not important were clearly defined, not in print, but in the minds and passed-down tales and understood rules of respective tribes.

I enjoyed greatly hearing about everyone's paper and how diverse the topics were that we focused on. I found it interesting in that many of the Southern papers they were more pro-union, but imediatly after the South was attacked they changed their views. I also thought it was interesting that in the diaries that were read both the women thought one way about how slaves were treated but when they actually went to a slave plantation it wasn't what they expected.

Edited by author 11-20-2002 09:01 PM
      It is interesting to note the variety of primary documents the class decided to tackle and the troubles that accompanied each type. Letters and diaries were very narrowly focused, while some newspapers were much too broad. Illustrations and weekly readers contained a lot of visual effects and entertainment, but sometimes little news at all. All in all, each type of document had some sort of problem that accompanied it, and every document itself was slanted and biased by particular writers to a particular audience.

    It is always argued that the media plays a huge role in our modern society, but it is usually a narrow complaint about promoting violence or stereotypes and often silenced easily. However, after analyzing nineteenth century documents, I think it can now be argued that the media plays the largest role possible in society, and I think that I might actually subscribe to that hypothesis. The perspective of people's experiences is the only thing they take with them about certain events and occurances, and the makers of perspectives for people who were unable to directly experience the event or occurance are in control. Whatever they write goes, and whatever take they present on something, most people buy into it, at least in some part (and we wonder how easy it was to create sectionalism). I don't want to get too philosophical with this, because honestly, I'd bore myself to sleep and it'd be bad to accidently submit this message with a bunch of random letters on it that were typed with my dozing forehead. But I will say that I now believe a lot more in the power of the media. Often times in history, it's the only thing we have to go on.