“[V]irtually every working anthropologist in the nation who had any familiarity with one of another Indian tribe was called in to testify about such matters such as the extent of aboriginal hunting grounds. Their information was valued, even it was almost in all cased derived from the same old men who the commission did not find reliable” (396).
This quote reflects both the reality of legal red tape Native peoples faced in securing rights to traditional land, as well as the approach of scholarship in Jake Page’s book on the history written on them. In the aim to recount the history of the people, Page relies mostly on academic scholarship, as indicated in his suggested reading and bibliography, some of which he coauthors. The scholarship is lazy as he cites works he collaborates on and its focalized only through a mostly academic lens; telling the history of a people without using primary sources by those from these groups. This presents an incredibly problematic issue, a flawed one, in that the history is told through a very specific lens, one that is reliant on outside(r) perspectives legitimized through University Presses and major publishing houses. Under normal historiography this wouldn’t be an issue, however, it highlights a major missing component: the voice of the Native peoples that this book exemplifies and capitalizes on. Very little in the book comes from a Native voice, aside from the occasional quote or anecdote, but Page relies more on accounts presented through non-Native avenues, thus denying much of the exploration of Indian/Native/Indigenous peoples to present their views of the events Page chooses to focus on. (Conversely, Ken Burns’ documentary series on the American West includes members of tribes to tell their story, so it can be and has been done).
Furthermore, the lens of Native history is only relegated on periods of contact and interaction between Post-Columbian colonial (Spanish, French, and English) and American and the various tribes and peoples they’ve encountered. While these are reflective of crucial periods and events, the “history” is only addressed when this clash presides, and little is discussed of history of the peoples themselves. In fact, there is little discussion of who these various people were, but only how they interacted between region and oncoming waves of Europeans and later Americans. It details what happened to the groups upon contact, exchange, interaction with Western outsiders, but for the most part they remain faceless and more about these groups would have been an enriching aspect of this book. At one point, Page’s bland discussion is squarely on colonial events from British, French, and American perspectives albeit with an attempt to focalize the narrative toward a Native perspective, without much nuance. In other areas, major events seemed to be glossed over or completely ignored/omitted. The nuance does comes in toward discussion of twentieth century issues and events perhaps because it's closer to periods he would have witnessed and reported on.
Without the significant presence of clear Native voices to tell their (his)story, Page’s book reads blandly with cursory looks at major events that only involve a Caucasian presence, veering between colonial atrocities to legalized betrayal by the Federal government. This is not to say that these events weren’t important, that they didn’t happen, nor the effects are not at detrimental--they are--however, Wikipedia’s entry on Native American history does the same thing, and with more dynamic comprehensive research, which doesn’t require purchasing or borrowing this book.