What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tragedy of Little Bighorn
Describes the impact of the westward migration of the white settlers on the Indians of the Great Plains which culminated in the massacre of Custer and his men in the battle at Little Big Horn in 1876.
64 pages, Library Binding
First published January 1, 1989
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 11, 2025
I start out reading a book with the sole intention of giving it a 5-Star rating. I really am forgiving of mistakes or shortcomings in the book, as long as it remains good, the story remains good, and the ending remains good... Hopefully, you get the idea. When it comes to history, though, it is different; one thing wrong in a history book can put everything in the book into question. In addition, when the author interjects their opinion or agenda, even if it is accurate. But the worst of all is revisionist history, where history itself is changed...a popular thing to do these days, especially in this coming age of AI, where the old saying, "seeing is believing", is no longer true.
My first question about the book is whose tragedy does the author mean - the Native Americans' or Custer's? You get the idea that the title is in defense or support of the Native American, but the text of the book would have you believe otherwise. I could never engage in this book because I was never sure (from the author's point of view) which side I was supposed to be rooting for.
Then there are the factually wrong statements: Indians welcomed the pioneers in the 1700s. That so? Read about those Watauga mountain boys; it will (accurately) detail a different tale indeed. No, they didn't. I mean, yes, there were friendly Native Americans, but there were also Native Americans who did not welcome the "white man" because, justifiably so, he was taking their land and their game, and in some cases, their lives.
Another outright error, the statement that no one went west of the Missouri until 1849...that doesn't, of course, hold water with anyone who knows their history. Has anyone heard of Lewis and Clark? Corps of Discovery? John Coulter...Coulter's Hell? Many mountain men vied to find the Pacific; many failed, some succeeded... most did so before 1849.
The overall tone of the book takes a very negative look at the Native American...it references them as "hostiles" if they lived outside a reservation. Whether this was an actual word used then, I am not sure; I never heard of it until the Christian Bale movie. But to the book's fault, the author's fault, once that word is out there, it is used in reference to the Native American...which connotes hostility whether it was there or not.
Another non-support of the native American is when the author states the Sioux "considered" the Black Hills sacred. Let's get one thing straight...they owned the Black Hills, there was no "considering" to it, they were sacred.
I had other issues with the book on points of history and statements against the Native Americans, like when it called the Bighorn an "Indian Massacre"? Really? The 7th Calvary attacked the Native Americans...they were not the instigators. How is the defense of your home a "massacre"? Sorry, Custer, should have brought along those two Gatling guns...that was his fault.
And in the end...the book calls Custer..."An American Hero." Need I say more? Custer first earned recognition by invading a free and peaceable country, then again, leading the government against its own citizens.
I am always looking for history books for my home-schooled son - this won't be one of them. It seems that to find accurate, unadulterated history, one must go to history books written by no less than one generation removed from the incident.
Why did I read this book? It was a gap filler as I waited for Catriona to arrive - my wife had got it free at a public-school book giveaway.
My first question about the book is whose tragedy does the author mean - the Native Americans' or Custer's? You get the idea that the title is in defense or support of the Native American, but the text of the book would have you believe otherwise. I could never engage in this book because I was never sure (from the author's point of view) which side I was supposed to be rooting for.
Then there are the factually wrong statements: Indians welcomed the pioneers in the 1700s. That so? Read about those Watauga mountain boys; it will (accurately) detail a different tale indeed. No, they didn't. I mean, yes, there were friendly Native Americans, but there were also Native Americans who did not welcome the "white man" because, justifiably so, he was taking their land and their game, and in some cases, their lives.
Another outright error, the statement that no one went west of the Missouri until 1849...that doesn't, of course, hold water with anyone who knows their history. Has anyone heard of Lewis and Clark? Corps of Discovery? John Coulter...Coulter's Hell? Many mountain men vied to find the Pacific; many failed, some succeeded... most did so before 1849.
The overall tone of the book takes a very negative look at the Native American...it references them as "hostiles" if they lived outside a reservation. Whether this was an actual word used then, I am not sure; I never heard of it until the Christian Bale movie. But to the book's fault, the author's fault, once that word is out there, it is used in reference to the Native American...which connotes hostility whether it was there or not.
Another non-support of the native American is when the author states the Sioux "considered" the Black Hills sacred. Let's get one thing straight...they owned the Black Hills, there was no "considering" to it, they were sacred.
I had other issues with the book on points of history and statements against the Native Americans, like when it called the Bighorn an "Indian Massacre"? Really? The 7th Calvary attacked the Native Americans...they were not the instigators. How is the defense of your home a "massacre"? Sorry, Custer, should have brought along those two Gatling guns...that was his fault.
And in the end...the book calls Custer..."An American Hero." Need I say more? Custer first earned recognition by invading a free and peaceable country, then again, leading the government against its own citizens.
I am always looking for history books for my home-schooled son - this won't be one of them. It seems that to find accurate, unadulterated history, one must go to history books written by no less than one generation removed from the incident.
Why did I read this book? It was a gap filler as I waited for Catriona to arrive - my wife had got it free at a public-school book giveaway.
Displaying 1 of 1 review