My review from the September 1995 Carpe Libra newsletter:

Written in 1971, this book gives the history of the conquest of the American West from the Indians’ point of view. It covers the years 1860 though 1890, from the Sioux uprisings in Minnesota to the Wounded Knee Massacre.

The writing is biased, redundant, and at times seems geared for a third-grade audience. And it’s disturbing. The history of the Western Indian is a chain of broken treaties, mistreatment of innocent people, and government misconduct. As white settlers moved into a given region, the Indians would be asked to come to a council. There, they would be forced, or bribed, into signing a treaty that limited them to a portion of their homeland. Soon whites would be infringing on this portion, and the Indians would be asked to another council and offered more bribes. More often than not, they land they ended up on would be unsuitable for farming and contained no game for them to hunt. They would be reliant on promised money and food from the government to survive, but crooked agents would steal from them, and the Indians were left to starve and suffer from inadequate housing. When many died, and the rest got fed up with the situation, the Indians would attempt to return to their former homelands. At this point, the army would get involved and either force them back to the reservation or massacre them as “belligerents.” Usually, Indians who behaved lawfully, and often entirely different tribes, would be lumped with the “problem” Indians and treated accordingly.

This is not to say that all Indians were innocent. Many were out of control, seeking revenge on any white person they could find. Others would take bribes of money or liquor to betray other tribes or even their own people. Many whites were sympathetic to the Indian’s plight, fought for their rights, and in many situations were able to work things out to the advantage of all parties. The biggest problem was the government, full of dishonest agents who would keep the money intended for the reservations, and congressmen who were more interested in what was happening in their districts that in the fate of a few non-voting Indians. Likewise the army, who had to enforce the treaties and control the situation, contained men who hated the Indians for what they had seen done to settlers and soldiers and sought revenge indiscriminately.

My conclusion: 1) What happened to the Indians was unfair and cruel. 2) The conquest of the West by whites was inevitable, not because they were a superior race, but because they were a more-advanced society. History teaches that a more-advanced society will, in the long run, always dominate a less-advanced one. But it could, and should, have been handled better. 3) The motive for conquest was not racial hatred, but greed. People were allowed to get away with exploiting the Indians, so they did. This, in time, led to racial distrust, contempt and hatred, but these were results, not motives. 4) More than a history of what whites did to Indians, it should be viewed as another chapter in mans’ inhumanity to man. 5) It is time for both Indians and whites who feel guilty about history to put the past behind them and get on with their lives. Everyone needs to accept that the conquest of the West and the presence of white people is an established fact and no amount of whining is going to change that. But it is healthy to be aware of what occurred.