I realize that I gave the first 2 volumes in this series high marks, and this one is not less than. I just didn't like it. Something grew in me as I was reading this, and that was a sense that Eckert is reacting against the reacting against traditional history. In other words, history was once told from the point of view of the victors. Then, we felt bad about that, so we decided to paint a more sympathetic view of the conquered. All well and good. And then it's like Eckert wants us to see things as they REALLY were, which is that there were great rascals on both sides, but since we've moved away from talking much about the Indian rascals, let's divulge their actions with grand guignol gusto. So we have accounts that go on for pages of men being disemboweled, castrated, forced to watch their enemies eat their hearts before they die, and burned slowly at a stake, turned into soup, whatever. We have children suffering from dysentery being drowned because they pooped on Pontiac. We have children forced to watch their mothers hung from between two trees, her tongue hanging out grotesquely, swelling and turning black. This on top of the unborn-baby cannibalism in The Wilderness Empire. Oh yeah, and the white man's pretty bad, too. He passes out blankets infected with smallpox. And it's only because he's a big meanie that the Indians are forced to treat him so bad. Shame on 'im. And we all have this white man guilt over what people did 250 years ago.
Now, I get that Eckert wrote this book before I was born and nobody was doing anything like this, so I'm willing to say that my own experience of reading history in the post-modern world has colored my reading of his book. That doesn't change the fact that I don't feel like this kind of historical retelling is necessary. There are brief allusions to peace-loving Indians here. Very brief. Eckert gives them only a passing glance because their story isn't full of all that fun, taboo gore. I don't read his account of the Indians' brutality and think, "What a savage creature; oh my." Instead, I think, "People are awful." And I don't want to think that about people. Did stuff like this go on? I have no doubt, and Eckert's research is extensive and thorough. Does it go on today? Sadly, yes. Is it important to know it's going on? Depends on why you want to know. If you need to know so you can take positive action, then yes, it's important. But let's not forget that there are good people in this world. There are people who love, people who lay down their arms and break bread together. There are treaties; there is reconstruction. It is not all manifest destiny and mass murder. What I would really like is somebody to take Eckert's detail-driven, meticulous eye and turn it toward the stuff people were doing RIGHT at this time, to focus on whites and Indians who joined in fellowship and smoked together. Sure, there is some of that in his books, but there is such an undercurrent of double-crossing and looming sadism that you can't trust it. That's just not what I'm into anymore.