Ned Blackhawk’s Violence over the Land presents the history of the Great Basin Indians and their interactions with the Spanish, British, and American empires. Blackhawk responds in this book to many harmful myths about the conquest of the American West. Most importantly, he undermines the idea of primitivism by presenting the Great Basin Indians as having a history, developing culturally, acting strategically, and playing key geopolitical roles. This is a dark and compelling history, one which a wide range of historians should read in order to grapple with the causes and legacy of violence in American history.
Blackhawk aims to discredit the idea of primitivism as applied to the Great Basin Indians. Primitivism generally stated that the Great Basin Indians were “peoples without history” and “the least developed cultures in the world” (4). They lived and had always lived “simple unchanging lives as desert wanderers,” trapped in their static culture as historical actors like the Spanish or Americans inexorably overwhelmed them (4). He presents Mark Twain as an early sponsor of this idea. Twain described them as a “silent, sneaking, treacherous looking race” in Roughing It, offering no explanation for their degraded condition other than their own primitive ways (276).
Blackhawk then shows how primitivism took on a more scientific appearance in the first half of the twentieth century under the influence of anthropologist Julian Steward. Focusing on the nonequestarian Great Basin Indians, Steward argued that their static culture and poverty stemmed directly from the simplicity of the desert environment they inhabited. They lacked history because they never changed, remaining timelessly bound to the deprivation and crudeness of their surroundings. Primitivism had concrete negative consequences for the Great Basin Indians. Because Americans viewed them as lacking a history and as exceptionally primeval, they believed the only recourses were to destroy them or convert them to American lifestyles. Even in the 1930’s, Steward argued against the federal government giving reservation land and autonomy to the Shoshones because as primitive hunter-gatherer bands, such modern concepts would merely “baffle them” (279).
Blackhawk undermines the idea of primitivism by portraying the Great Basin Indians as possessors of a dynamic and vital role in the history of the West. In fact, throughout the rise and fall of New Spain, these tribes were the major power brokers of the Great Basin. The New Mexican economy relied heavily on the Indian slave trade. In exchange, Great Basin Indians received transformative technologies such as guns and horses. These new tools led to new military strategies and created a profound imbalance of power between equestrians and non-equestrians. Moreover, the Spanish could not explore, missionize, or project power into the Rocky Mountains without alliances with Indian tribes. Continual Indian raids on Spanish and genizaro settlements meant that for centuries the supposed imperial conquerors lived in continual jeopardy. For most of the time period of this book, the Great Basin was native ground in which outsiders had to adapt to the power and demands of these tribes.
Aside from being the major power brokers in the Great Basin for centuries, Blackhawk shows that these tribes were strategic calculators who employed different geopolitical tools under different conditions. For instance, as the Comanche became too powerful and aggressive in the mid-eighteenth century, their erstwhile allies the Utes switched sides and allied with Spanish in order to balance against the greater threat. In the conflict between the Comanche and the Spanish, the Utes sought to be the balancer, keeping power in their hands by deciding which way the balance of power would move. A century later, as Americans expanded rapidly into the Great Basin, Utes used diplomacy and selective violence to gain concessions and resources. During the Civil War, they allied with the Union, who needed them to block potential Confederate moves westward, and thereby gained more power and resources. By demonstrating their geopolitical acumen, Blackhawk undermines the idea of these Indians as simple-minded or unable to grasp grand geopolitical affairs.
Blackhawk further discredits the primitivism viewpoint by showing that the poverty and degradation people like Mark Twain witnessed among Great Basin Indians were not essential characteristics of a supposedly inferior people, but products of historical processes and abuses. Blackhawk shows, for instance, that the flood of American settlers and trappers drained the area of key resources for the Indian economies such as game or furs. The US government also consistently failed to comply with treaty requirements such as providing resources or preventing settler incursion, often compelling the Great Basin Indians to violence and creating a violent cycle that led to even more Indian disenfranchisement. Reaching even further back in time, Blackhawk argues that the impoverishment of tribes like the Shoshone stemmed from their failure to acquire firearms and horses, which put them at the mercy of equestrian Indians and Euro-Americans alike.
The central point of Violence over the Land is that this impoverishment was a result of historical change, but primitivism denied that change and America’s role in that process. Instead, primitivism conveniently described native decline as an inevitable consequence of their inherent primitiveness, thereby making American conquest and inevitable consequence of its dynamism and advancement. Blackhawk puts the violence of Western history and American expansion onto center stage, claiming “Violence and the American nationhood, in short, progressed hand in hand” (9). By giving the Great Basin Indians a complex and dynamic history, he compels all Americans to wrestle with the historical reality and legacy of imperialism rather than fall back on the comforting myths of primitivism.