Anna-Liisa’s review of Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History > Likes and Comments
449 likes · Like
What's racist? The Comanches are presented as they ere with no judgements. The settlers, Texas Rangers, US Army are also portrayed in all of their brutality. You have to stop thinking like a 21st century apologist. You cannot judge any side by our standards but only tell the truth of what happened.
I was disgusted by this book, i burned it to keep my bookshelf unpolluted.
Is there a way to "like" Eileen's comment?
I assumed these representations weren't racist in a modern sense, but a representation of how white settlers perceived these people at the time and therefore why it was impossible to for the cultures to coexist.
If you had actually finished the book, then you would have found that the book also portrays the savagery of the "modern civilized white man". They take actions that mimic the comanches and there is no favoritism or racism. I found it hard to believe that people regardless to color, culture, religion, or background could act as cruel as the many clashing empires in this book, but this is the foundation of all wars. Most of the savagery in the book is only a device to promote self interest regardless to skin color. Quanah Parker and Cynthia Ann Parker are my ancestors, and I can attest to the accuracy of which this story is written. The book sympathizes with both sides and racism is only portrayed in hindsight to newspaper headlines.
You cannot claim blasphemy and racism here. You haven't even finished the book. Did you even get to the part where the history of the spread of agriculture is explained?
People choose to see thing as they want them to be and not as they are. Don't scream wolf if you haven't even finished the book.
I did finally finish the book but found it racist and problematic, to say the least. I wasn't bothered by the accounts of violence portrayed. I was really bothered by the antiquated use of derogatory anthropological vernacular.
you probably haven't read many books...your reading comprehension is way off..
That there are so many who find this book just a swell unbiased account is a testament to how ingrained and institutionalized racism is in 21st century America. The portrayal that Gwynne puts forth of Native Americans, world history, the history of agriculture, and nearly every other thing he prattles on about, are just the same antiquated tripe that has been taught in schools and history books about the superiority of the white man and Western civilization, since the century before last. That presumably literate, book loving folks cannot discern the racism, ethnocentrism, and lack of scholarship of Gwynne, here in the 21st century, just shows the persistence of the cultural myths, and pathological xenophobia of Western Civilization. Seriously folks you need to broaden your reading lists and maybe question the centuries old retelling, over and over, of the glories of Western Civilization and the uselessness of any other World view.
What do you mean by racist? An actual depiction of reality? They were racist then, on both sides. You want a sugar coating? Me personally, I'm glad to see how it really was.
I'm really shocked at some of the racist comments. I thought this book represented both sides very well. They both did awful things. I never once got the feeling that the author was racist or favored one side over the other.
The racism is not in portraying brutality without sugarcoating it-no one is asking for that-just the language of "civilized" and "savage" and a teleological sense of human progress.
Funny how Gwynne constantly refers to the Comanches as savage and primitive yet the white settlers who murdered over 30 million buffalo in a decade are seen as "opportunistic bringing about profound change" or the blue coats who's strategy included massacring native villages full of women and children are seen as civilized and brave lol
Sorry Mary "slaughtered" over 30 million buffalo and murdered over 1 million natives . Now that's its grammatically correct does "one" feel better about why they did ?
You convinced me to read the book, whenever something is written off as "racist" that's usually a good indicator that it's honest where we feel it oughtn't to be. Adding to my want to read list now...
For those who felt this book was racist, perhaps they should actually read it. This book does not portray either the Indians or settlers in a good way. Both sides were barbaric.
One side was clearly more barbaric , which is obv in the fact that native Americans and the buffalo are nearly extinct . To ignore this simple but obv point is willful ignorance. Do a 5 min search of sand creek massacre , Google the laws regarding women in Texas during the 19 th century , open your mind to how the buffalo and antelope were hunted to near extinction for profit . Moreover calling natives barbaric and Stone Age is an OPINIoN ( a rather racist one at that) assigning the settlers more positive adjectives like Civilized and innovative and brave lol is also a ridic opinion . Sorry to bust anyone's bubble but Gwennye is NOT an historian and this is NOT historical accurate at all.
And your grammar is as imperfect as are your opinions .
Blah blah blah someone as arrogant as yourself must make very poor company .. Good job on actually responding to my opinions.
I don't think the book is blatantly racist, but certainly insensitive, at best. It's difficult for me to assume that for all of Gwynne's journalistic and authorship accomplishments he would choose this book as a racist coming out party. I'm only 30 pages in as of this comment and I've read quite a few things already that I labeled "closed minded" in the approach of describing the events. Native Americans arrived centuries ahead of Europeans explorers and achieved an equilibrium with nature. European culture and ingenuity brought excellent advances in industry and technology and for it, today we live longer while 60% of the types of trees that existed in 1492 are gone and 85% of the song birds. This is not to mention flowers, other vegetation and animals, insects and human cultures. Would you destroy all of that to live another 25 years? I think Gwynne would. That's the impression I get of him from the way he wrote this book.
Luis,
I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,
I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,
I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,
I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,
I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,
I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Not racist at all. I did not get the feeling that there was an overt attempt to portray the Indians in any light but a realistic one. This book is a fair attempt to treat both sides as they were regarded in the day. And we all know that the settlers, especially the Texans, with their policy of absolute extermination were the most "racist" of that era. But then, that is just how people were. No accusations of racist should be applied to S.C. Gwynne.
It is amazing how in denial we white people are about our ugly colonial history. This book makes the settlers look like innocent campers.
It is amazing how in denial we white people are about our ugly colonial history. This book makes the settlers look like innocent campers.
This book is written with a clear eye to the both the nobility and the foibles of both the white and the red man and the tragedy that their culture clash unleashed on all of them. Racist? Polluting your bookshelf? Get over the PC and open your brains to the truth.
Gawdalmighty. The hand wringing comments of the enlightened moral entrepreneurs and the obsession with racism certainly reflects the indoctrination of The commentators in exchange for critical thinking and education. Any culture that lacks the moral standard to not practice torture and gang rape need not be understood or excused. Roasting small children and cutting the bottoms of captive's feet off for entertainment - are you kidding me? The Comanches were no better than the Muslim ISIS savages are today. The Judeo-Christian ethos that made this a once great country need not be apologized for. Noble savages? Like ISIS, put them to the sword and obliterate them.
See to your weapons and stand to your horses.
Deconstructing the history of a culture, laying bare all the raw savagery somehow then becomes a racist portrayal? Let the truth shine light into the dark corners so that we may see and better understand, and learn...
Is this review a joke? You quit after the 4th chapter and then write this ignorant review - I am baffled.
Loved this review, and I agree that it is racist. Author actually uses the term, "noble savage," and many other racist tropes such as "squaw." Another limpid white-on-red.
Hm, I just started this book and was already having some misgivings just in the opening pages. He's early on deciding that the Comanche are "primitives" and the white people were bringing "civilization". I'm like, "Woooaaahhh...not what I was expecting."
Sparky wrote: "Here's a thought for you: If we question the actions of the whites and the Natives, but you only get mad when we question the actions of the Natives, does that make the author racist, or you racist..."
Except she didn't question the actions of whites. She questioned the assumptions and lack of citation of sources on the part of the author. I mean, seriously, "klansman"??? Klansmen don't "support" their own race. They terrorize and murder people of other races while wearing a hood. I think this relatively innocuous review falls a bit short of that. The entirety of your comment says much more about you and your motivations than it does about the author of this review.
Sparky wrote: "Bobby, clearly you've misunderstood my comment. I'm referring to the fact that the author was FAR from supportive of the actions of the white settlers (and the Spanish) theougout the book. The only..."
And my take away is that her issue is that the Comanches are referred to as "savages" while the white people, no strangers to abducting men, women and children and torturing and raping them for generation after generation on end, all the while completely wiping out the indigenous residents of the land they are invading, are referred to as bringing civilization. I would prefer that this vicious and cognizant hypocrisy be corrected. As you say, everybody's guilty. So why is one group considered "savages" but the other one is not?
Sparky wrote: "Bobby wrote: "And my take away is that her issue is that the Comanches are referred to as "savages" while the white people... are referred to as bringing civilization."
That may be your take away,..."
I did read the book. The author most certainly did make exactly that comparison.
And man, you are on thin freaking ice when you say "I would compel you to find an example of European settlers making a show of torture, rape and killing..."
You're right. I don't have any evidence of that. Because someone has to find it and write it. Your assumption that it never happened when Goeorge Custer or Andrew Jackson was wiping out entire peoples is not just naive, it's self-serving. And I would venture that the people who enjoyed this:
http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/...
this:
http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/...
and this:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/8...
enjoyed their own brand of f'ed up sheezite. I'm with the reviewer. I had to stop reading because of the cultural centrism expressed in this book.
And your original comment and then defense of the word "klansman" is childish and deliberately obfuscates the point. Saying Klansman "uplift" one race over the other is like saying the Pacific Ocean is a large body of water and that you minimize the horror they have historically perpetrated in this way, like I said originally, says something about your motives. The Ku Klux Klan were and are bullies who use extreme violence and terror deliberately calculated to remove the status of humanity from particular of humans. This reviewer had the nerve to say that the author of this book was unfair of his treatment of the Comanche. They're not in the same universe and it's morally reprehensible that you would compare the two.
The books reads like an 19th century piece of propaganda you are absolutely right.
Anna-Liisa, you really have no idea what you are saying, as context has zero meaning to you. Nice job of misunderstanding; nice job of viewing history with a 21st century lens; nice job of writing a worthless review after reading four chapters; and, nice job of thinking you are actually important. Zero stars on all accounts.
I'm glad I didn't read this review before picking up the book. There are levels of tragedy in this story. Gwynne telling of this story made them clear -- to me.
It’s so disheartening to see that this review, which cherry picks quotes, has turned off readers to this amazing book.
Had the reviewer finished the book, she would know that the author deserves some of his harshest words for the white settlers who eradicated Indians in the early days of the Republic of Texas. Furthermore, the quote in the review is missing context. The author is comparing the Comanches to the Celtic ancestors of many of the white settlers. He does so specifically to show that ideas about civilization and culture change with time, and that no one group has a monopoly on being civilized.
The fact that she twists his words to call him a racist is vile and downright libelous. Please read for yourself. An amazing book that sheds light on an amazing culture.
I don’t think the author was disparaging the book because it inadequately portrayed some ratio of violence between the Comanches and the white settlers, but because the author (while at several points, I admit, does his homework and portrays both sides without prejudice and tries to give each a fair shake) does seem to have some germ of a prejudice of an idea as the the whites being civilized and the Comanches as barbarians. It’s a different culture; of course Comanches will seem uncivilized, but only if you apply the lens of white European civilization, which is what the author does. He also comes close at some points to endorsing manifest destiny as self-evident, and even some of his views on Mexican-US relations seem a little iffy. There’s a romanticization here, and admiration (especially towards the Rangers) which makes the book feel like a more engaging read. But it comes at a cost - like how he chooses to focus on Quanah and his “successful” attempt at merging into white society/culture, when there’s obviously red flags of so many examples of Comanches that were most likely experiencing the opposite. Yet, at the moment they most need a voice, they don’t get one. Instead the population boils down to “look how successful this guy was.” Which, okay. I mean, it’s a fascinating story. But Quanah seems to appear and reappear at select points in the book. So it felt odd that he became such a crux in the closing chapters.
Overall, I thought it was a en engaging and informative read. I don’t regret reading it; there’s no doubt that the author is a good writer (though I did have some problems with constant time jumps). I’m going to read Dee Browns “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” and James Welch’s “Killing Custer” to counterbalance.
John wrote: "Either desensitize or go back to reading fairy tales."
Desentisize? Do you think it's a virtue to read without applying your principles and understanding of morality, or any sort of critical thinking to the text? What are you, fifteen?
Eileen wrote: "What's racist? The Comanches are presented as they ere with no judgements. The settlers, Texas Rangers, US Army are also portrayed in all of their brutality. You have to stop thinking like a 21st c..."
No--Gwynne is *very* judgmental in his assessment of Comanche culture. He says as much. While he does offer examples of white brutality against Indians, he is also forthright in his opinion that the white world meant "progress," and the Plains Indian world "savage." He uses exactly those words.
There are some great stories in this book, but you have to wade through some *extraordinary* ethnocentrism on the way.
Indians were a very primitive people and behaved as such. Some tribes were vicious and brutal to their enemies be they white or other Indians. The atrocities committed by them are well documented and are historically accurate. Some Europeans were just as bad, this too is well documented. Painting the Indians as peaceful tribes is not realistic. Many tribes were peaceful and tried to get along with settlers, but not the Comanche. They were a ruthless tribe who showed no mercy to their captives which included children.
Reading only four chapters of any book and then writing a review of the entire book is meaningless. I suggest the critics of this book to do more reading about the Indians. A good start would be Louis and Clark’s expedition and the building of the trans continental railroad. Reading about the Mohawks and the Apache tribes is also enlightening.
I started reading this book a few days ago, and my feeling is that it is so unabashedly racist, I cannot take anything in the book as objective truth. White people are presented as evolved, and the "white savior" idea is just barely hidden. The Natives are presented as, in the authors own words, primitive, violent, barbaric people. This doesn't read as a simple telling of history. The author takes several opportunities to define the tribes in terms that are dehumanizing.
I know there are people who love this book. I won't be finishing it. I read on a recommendation from social media, and I am sorry I spent money on it. I feel like a worse person for having read any of it.
You know nothing about this tribe or the way they lived. Keep your head in the sand and the best part of you is exposed to the sun.
back to top
message 1:
by
Eileen
(new)
Jan 08, 2012 06:00PM
What's racist? The Comanches are presented as they ere with no judgements. The settlers, Texas Rangers, US Army are also portrayed in all of their brutality. You have to stop thinking like a 21st century apologist. You cannot judge any side by our standards but only tell the truth of what happened.
reply
|
flag
I was disgusted by this book, i burned it to keep my bookshelf unpolluted.
Is there a way to "like" Eileen's comment?
I assumed these representations weren't racist in a modern sense, but a representation of how white settlers perceived these people at the time and therefore why it was impossible to for the cultures to coexist.
If you had actually finished the book, then you would have found that the book also portrays the savagery of the "modern civilized white man". They take actions that mimic the comanches and there is no favoritism or racism. I found it hard to believe that people regardless to color, culture, religion, or background could act as cruel as the many clashing empires in this book, but this is the foundation of all wars. Most of the savagery in the book is only a device to promote self interest regardless to skin color. Quanah Parker and Cynthia Ann Parker are my ancestors, and I can attest to the accuracy of which this story is written. The book sympathizes with both sides and racism is only portrayed in hindsight to newspaper headlines. You cannot claim blasphemy and racism here. You haven't even finished the book. Did you even get to the part where the history of the spread of agriculture is explained?
People choose to see thing as they want them to be and not as they are. Don't scream wolf if you haven't even finished the book.
I did finally finish the book but found it racist and problematic, to say the least. I wasn't bothered by the accounts of violence portrayed. I was really bothered by the antiquated use of derogatory anthropological vernacular.
you probably haven't read many books...your reading comprehension is way off..
That there are so many who find this book just a swell unbiased account is a testament to how ingrained and institutionalized racism is in 21st century America. The portrayal that Gwynne puts forth of Native Americans, world history, the history of agriculture, and nearly every other thing he prattles on about, are just the same antiquated tripe that has been taught in schools and history books about the superiority of the white man and Western civilization, since the century before last. That presumably literate, book loving folks cannot discern the racism, ethnocentrism, and lack of scholarship of Gwynne, here in the 21st century, just shows the persistence of the cultural myths, and pathological xenophobia of Western Civilization. Seriously folks you need to broaden your reading lists and maybe question the centuries old retelling, over and over, of the glories of Western Civilization and the uselessness of any other World view.
What do you mean by racist? An actual depiction of reality? They were racist then, on both sides. You want a sugar coating? Me personally, I'm glad to see how it really was.
I'm really shocked at some of the racist comments. I thought this book represented both sides very well. They both did awful things. I never once got the feeling that the author was racist or favored one side over the other.
The racism is not in portraying brutality without sugarcoating it-no one is asking for that-just the language of "civilized" and "savage" and a teleological sense of human progress.
Funny how Gwynne constantly refers to the Comanches as savage and primitive yet the white settlers who murdered over 30 million buffalo in a decade are seen as "opportunistic bringing about profound change" or the blue coats who's strategy included massacring native villages full of women and children are seen as civilized and brave lol
Sorry Mary "slaughtered" over 30 million buffalo and murdered over 1 million natives . Now that's its grammatically correct does "one" feel better about why they did ?
You convinced me to read the book, whenever something is written off as "racist" that's usually a good indicator that it's honest where we feel it oughtn't to be. Adding to my want to read list now...
For those who felt this book was racist, perhaps they should actually read it. This book does not portray either the Indians or settlers in a good way. Both sides were barbaric.
One side was clearly more barbaric , which is obv in the fact that native Americans and the buffalo are nearly extinct . To ignore this simple but obv point is willful ignorance. Do a 5 min search of sand creek massacre , Google the laws regarding women in Texas during the 19 th century , open your mind to how the buffalo and antelope were hunted to near extinction for profit . Moreover calling natives barbaric and Stone Age is an OPINIoN ( a rather racist one at that) assigning the settlers more positive adjectives like Civilized and innovative and brave lol is also a ridic opinion . Sorry to bust anyone's bubble but Gwennye is NOT an historian and this is NOT historical accurate at all.
And your grammar is as imperfect as are your opinions .
Blah blah blah someone as arrogant as yourself must make very poor company .. Good job on actually responding to my opinions.
I don't think the book is blatantly racist, but certainly insensitive, at best. It's difficult for me to assume that for all of Gwynne's journalistic and authorship accomplishments he would choose this book as a racist coming out party. I'm only 30 pages in as of this comment and I've read quite a few things already that I labeled "closed minded" in the approach of describing the events. Native Americans arrived centuries ahead of Europeans explorers and achieved an equilibrium with nature. European culture and ingenuity brought excellent advances in industry and technology and for it, today we live longer while 60% of the types of trees that existed in 1492 are gone and 85% of the song birds. This is not to mention flowers, other vegetation and animals, insects and human cultures. Would you destroy all of that to live another 25 years? I think Gwynne would. That's the impression I get of him from the way he wrote this book.
Luis,I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Luis,I don't think Gwynne personally would do it. He's just reporting and he is reporting the mindset of the people that wiped out the cultures and species. I get no feeling that he actually approves of it.
Not racist at all. I did not get the feeling that there was an overt attempt to portray the Indians in any light but a realistic one. This book is a fair attempt to treat both sides as they were regarded in the day. And we all know that the settlers, especially the Texans, with their policy of absolute extermination were the most "racist" of that era. But then, that is just how people were. No accusations of racist should be applied to S.C. Gwynne.
It is amazing how in denial we white people are about our ugly colonial history. This book makes the settlers look like innocent campers.
It is amazing how in denial we white people are about our ugly colonial history. This book makes the settlers look like innocent campers.
This book is written with a clear eye to the both the nobility and the foibles of both the white and the red man and the tragedy that their culture clash unleashed on all of them. Racist? Polluting your bookshelf? Get over the PC and open your brains to the truth.
Gawdalmighty. The hand wringing comments of the enlightened moral entrepreneurs and the obsession with racism certainly reflects the indoctrination of The commentators in exchange for critical thinking and education. Any culture that lacks the moral standard to not practice torture and gang rape need not be understood or excused. Roasting small children and cutting the bottoms of captive's feet off for entertainment - are you kidding me? The Comanches were no better than the Muslim ISIS savages are today. The Judeo-Christian ethos that made this a once great country need not be apologized for. Noble savages? Like ISIS, put them to the sword and obliterate them.See to your weapons and stand to your horses.
Deconstructing the history of a culture, laying bare all the raw savagery somehow then becomes a racist portrayal? Let the truth shine light into the dark corners so that we may see and better understand, and learn...
Is this review a joke? You quit after the 4th chapter and then write this ignorant review - I am baffled.
Loved this review, and I agree that it is racist. Author actually uses the term, "noble savage," and many other racist tropes such as "squaw." Another limpid white-on-red.
Hm, I just started this book and was already having some misgivings just in the opening pages. He's early on deciding that the Comanche are "primitives" and the white people were bringing "civilization". I'm like, "Woooaaahhh...not what I was expecting."
Sparky wrote: "Here's a thought for you: If we question the actions of the whites and the Natives, but you only get mad when we question the actions of the Natives, does that make the author racist, or you racist..."Except she didn't question the actions of whites. She questioned the assumptions and lack of citation of sources on the part of the author. I mean, seriously, "klansman"??? Klansmen don't "support" their own race. They terrorize and murder people of other races while wearing a hood. I think this relatively innocuous review falls a bit short of that. The entirety of your comment says much more about you and your motivations than it does about the author of this review.
Sparky wrote: "Bobby, clearly you've misunderstood my comment. I'm referring to the fact that the author was FAR from supportive of the actions of the white settlers (and the Spanish) theougout the book. The only..."And my take away is that her issue is that the Comanches are referred to as "savages" while the white people, no strangers to abducting men, women and children and torturing and raping them for generation after generation on end, all the while completely wiping out the indigenous residents of the land they are invading, are referred to as bringing civilization. I would prefer that this vicious and cognizant hypocrisy be corrected. As you say, everybody's guilty. So why is one group considered "savages" but the other one is not?
Sparky wrote: "Bobby wrote: "And my take away is that her issue is that the Comanches are referred to as "savages" while the white people... are referred to as bringing civilization."That may be your take away,..."
I did read the book. The author most certainly did make exactly that comparison.
And man, you are on thin freaking ice when you say "I would compel you to find an example of European settlers making a show of torture, rape and killing..."
You're right. I don't have any evidence of that. Because someone has to find it and write it. Your assumption that it never happened when Goeorge Custer or Andrew Jackson was wiping out entire peoples is not just naive, it's self-serving. And I would venture that the people who enjoyed this:
http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/...
this:
http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/...
and this:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/8...
enjoyed their own brand of f'ed up sheezite. I'm with the reviewer. I had to stop reading because of the cultural centrism expressed in this book.
And your original comment and then defense of the word "klansman" is childish and deliberately obfuscates the point. Saying Klansman "uplift" one race over the other is like saying the Pacific Ocean is a large body of water and that you minimize the horror they have historically perpetrated in this way, like I said originally, says something about your motives. The Ku Klux Klan were and are bullies who use extreme violence and terror deliberately calculated to remove the status of humanity from particular of humans. This reviewer had the nerve to say that the author of this book was unfair of his treatment of the Comanche. They're not in the same universe and it's morally reprehensible that you would compare the two.
The books reads like an 19th century piece of propaganda you are absolutely right.
Anna-Liisa, you really have no idea what you are saying, as context has zero meaning to you. Nice job of misunderstanding; nice job of viewing history with a 21st century lens; nice job of writing a worthless review after reading four chapters; and, nice job of thinking you are actually important. Zero stars on all accounts.
I'm glad I didn't read this review before picking up the book. There are levels of tragedy in this story. Gwynne telling of this story made them clear -- to me.
It’s so disheartening to see that this review, which cherry picks quotes, has turned off readers to this amazing book. Had the reviewer finished the book, she would know that the author deserves some of his harshest words for the white settlers who eradicated Indians in the early days of the Republic of Texas. Furthermore, the quote in the review is missing context. The author is comparing the Comanches to the Celtic ancestors of many of the white settlers. He does so specifically to show that ideas about civilization and culture change with time, and that no one group has a monopoly on being civilized.
The fact that she twists his words to call him a racist is vile and downright libelous. Please read for yourself. An amazing book that sheds light on an amazing culture.
I don’t think the author was disparaging the book because it inadequately portrayed some ratio of violence between the Comanches and the white settlers, but because the author (while at several points, I admit, does his homework and portrays both sides without prejudice and tries to give each a fair shake) does seem to have some germ of a prejudice of an idea as the the whites being civilized and the Comanches as barbarians. It’s a different culture; of course Comanches will seem uncivilized, but only if you apply the lens of white European civilization, which is what the author does. He also comes close at some points to endorsing manifest destiny as self-evident, and even some of his views on Mexican-US relations seem a little iffy. There’s a romanticization here, and admiration (especially towards the Rangers) which makes the book feel like a more engaging read. But it comes at a cost - like how he chooses to focus on Quanah and his “successful” attempt at merging into white society/culture, when there’s obviously red flags of so many examples of Comanches that were most likely experiencing the opposite. Yet, at the moment they most need a voice, they don’t get one. Instead the population boils down to “look how successful this guy was.” Which, okay. I mean, it’s a fascinating story. But Quanah seems to appear and reappear at select points in the book. So it felt odd that he became such a crux in the closing chapters. Overall, I thought it was a en engaging and informative read. I don’t regret reading it; there’s no doubt that the author is a good writer (though I did have some problems with constant time jumps). I’m going to read Dee Browns “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” and James Welch’s “Killing Custer” to counterbalance.
John wrote: "Either desensitize or go back to reading fairy tales."Desentisize? Do you think it's a virtue to read without applying your principles and understanding of morality, or any sort of critical thinking to the text? What are you, fifteen?
Eileen wrote: "What's racist? The Comanches are presented as they ere with no judgements. The settlers, Texas Rangers, US Army are also portrayed in all of their brutality. You have to stop thinking like a 21st c..."No--Gwynne is *very* judgmental in his assessment of Comanche culture. He says as much. While he does offer examples of white brutality against Indians, he is also forthright in his opinion that the white world meant "progress," and the Plains Indian world "savage." He uses exactly those words.
There are some great stories in this book, but you have to wade through some *extraordinary* ethnocentrism on the way.
Indians were a very primitive people and behaved as such. Some tribes were vicious and brutal to their enemies be they white or other Indians. The atrocities committed by them are well documented and are historically accurate. Some Europeans were just as bad, this too is well documented. Painting the Indians as peaceful tribes is not realistic. Many tribes were peaceful and tried to get along with settlers, but not the Comanche. They were a ruthless tribe who showed no mercy to their captives which included children. Reading only four chapters of any book and then writing a review of the entire book is meaningless. I suggest the critics of this book to do more reading about the Indians. A good start would be Louis and Clark’s expedition and the building of the trans continental railroad. Reading about the Mohawks and the Apache tribes is also enlightening.
I started reading this book a few days ago, and my feeling is that it is so unabashedly racist, I cannot take anything in the book as objective truth. White people are presented as evolved, and the "white savior" idea is just barely hidden. The Natives are presented as, in the authors own words, primitive, violent, barbaric people. This doesn't read as a simple telling of history. The author takes several opportunities to define the tribes in terms that are dehumanizing. I know there are people who love this book. I won't be finishing it. I read on a recommendation from social media, and I am sorry I spent money on it. I feel like a worse person for having read any of it.
You know nothing about this tribe or the way they lived. Keep your head in the sand and the best part of you is exposed to the sun.
