Edited by author 12-05-2002 04:15 PM
      The discussions in class today about Red Cloud raised an interesting contradiction that I would like to further detail. The stories in the “autobiography” were obviously centered around battles, raids, and conflicts. Most of these events were depicted as random and unprovoked, which would lead one to believe in the savageness of the Sioux as a tribe and people, but it is doubtful if this was Red Cloud's goal in telling the stories. Therefore, the war topics discussed, both vivid and descriptive, serve to make a point for both the Native American and white settler side of an interprative issue.

      For Red Cloud, these stories were boasted about in his old age as an attempt to glorify his pride and courage in his younger years. The status of a man in the Sioux tribe was determined by his actions on the battlefield, so it was essential to Red Cloud that he be depicted as having deserved his position as a respected leader. For the most part, however, these stories were for simple bragging rights, not much unlike those of a group of modern drinking buddies crowded around a bar table, bragging about and exaggerating the glory days of their younger lives. The pure element of machismo is completely relevant, and what is I believe the major theme of the stories for Red Cloud.

     On the contradictory side, war stories that depict unlawful raids and killings give every white frontiersmen his excuse to invade Indian land. It was assumed that if imperialistic ideals had been a core value in Sioux society, then the law of natural selection was simply inevitable. This inevitableness allowed white men to do the same type deeds to the Native Americans that they believed the Native Americans had done to others. The depicted war journals gave settlers more of a peace of mind in doing it, too. It’s easier on the conscience to steal from a thief or kill a murderer.

     This contradiction of themes was not clear to either side at the time of Indian land removal, but in hindsight, we can see things differently. Thus raises a segment of the question that we have discussed over and over again. When looking at a historical document, what determines how it is to be interpreted? And is it our interpretation that we should take from that document, or should we try to objectively view the issue from the author’s (or in this case, the orator’s) point of view? In other words, who plays a larger role in creating the essence of history – the author or the reader?

Sorry for the late post

I agree with the statements of most of the class about how easy to read this book was for me. I found to be quite interesting and informative. Leanna mentioned that she had never heard of Red Cloud, and I was in the same situation before reading the book. This suprised me because of the many exploits of Red Cloud. As the only Indian to win military victories over the United State, his place in the historical record seems somewhat neglected. This may be because the fighting between the Indians and U.S troops is often mentioned briefly in history classes.
I think this book has value in that it gives it's reader an insight into Indian culture and customs. The book often portrays Red Cloud, as Brittany mentioned, as a mere savage. Allan's account of Red Cloud is understandable due to his postion and the time in which he wrote, and once the reader seperates the bias in the writing from the facts of the story many things of intrest come up. Allan goes into detail on Red Cloud's political skills and I found this to be one of the better parts of the book.

Edited by author 12-02-2002 08:51 PM
I, too, apologize for the late posting. I also thought that the posting wouldn't be due until our class discussion.

I agree with Jake that Red Cloud is portrayed out of context in comparison to other tribes. You know that he was not the only Indian that acted in this manner. To the 'white men', his actions may seem irrational or savage, but when you turn your preconceived notions of proper behavior upside down, to an Indian, his actions may have made perfect sense. When you think that the Americans were pushing their way west and taking over Indian lands, you have to wonder how the Americans would react if, say, the Canadians tried to take them over. You can bet that they would react fiercely to protect what was theirs, and rightfully so. I think Red Cloud acted the same way, in a manner of speaking.

I enjoyed the book, as it seems most of the class also did.

Very sorry for the late post-didn't realize we needed to have posted by classtime today.

Anyways, as has been mentioned several times, I felt the book did center around the various rivalries between and sometimes within a tribe. While this was easy to read, I thought it became somewhat tedious after a while. I realize this book was written to give an accurate portrayal of Native Americans, but the massive amount of time spent on fighting just serves to perpetuate what I think to be an inaccurate stereotype.

I enjoyed reading about the customs more than anything else-especially with marriage and social hierarchy(I thought this idea was especially interesting since, as the author noted, Native Americans were viewed to be very democratic). Red Cloud was certainly an interesting man, but as the author points out, a man with faults. By noting these faults it is much easier to picture Red Cloud as an actual human being instead of this magnanimous leader that some biographers would have a tendency to do.

Overall I found the book to be very interesting if a bit too concentrated on war.

Sorry for a late posting- I thought since our discussion was delayed so was our posting.
 I personally have always found Indians very captivating. As a youth I read many books about Indians, heard stories from my grandad who is part Cherokee, and visited many Indian villages. Each experience left me with a deep interest in a culture that was so swiftly and decidely removed/ compartmentalized in American society. Therefore I found Red Cloud to be a fascinating person. However I was a little disappointed in how the book portrayed him. He was seen as a savage that had little better to do then create a disturbance with other tribes. The book makes comment that after a long winter of no fighting that Red Cloud and his men simply set out fight surrounding Indians. The book does take note to descibe his bravery in fighting, but does little to explain the motivation behind such fighting. Try as they may, Red Cloud comes off looking like a savage with an over aggressive approach to life. Certainly Red Cloud isn't in the world of the white men and will not work according to white man's standards. I wish the book would have provided a wider base and understanding of Indian culture that would have brought better understanding of the man Red Cloud.
On a positive note, I found what the book did include to be fascinating. The accounts of his fightings, marriage, etc. were great insights into Indian culture. The book was both descriptive and concise in its treatment of such events. You could imagine him sneaking up on unsuspecting enemies, or walking through his village. I had a sense of being there with him. The easy-read style was great for reading over break too!
Red Cloud's story is one that vividly portrays an important era in our history and overall I would recommend this book to anyone.

The presentation page for today's treatment of the new urban environment can be found at:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/urban41.htm)