MoFo Book Club - Jan. '22

Tools    





The Adventure Starts Here!
No opinion on the style of the discussion but I'm guessing this group might do well with something very free-form/open. My two cents and gut feeling on that.

Started Empire of the Summer Moon today. Read chapter 1. Do we have target dates for reading/finishing the book?



We all float down here....
No opinion on the style of the discussion but I'm guessing this group might do well with something very free-form/open. My two cents and gut feeling on that.
I tend to agree.
Started Empire of the Summer Moon today. Read chapter 1. Do we have target dates for reading/finishing the book?
I don't really want to impose target dates. I'd say finish the book in time to discuss before it's time to read the next one.



Impressions from the first three chapters:

I am enjoying the book so far. My favorite part is undoubtedly the account of the way that the introduction of horses so dramatically changed the power dynamics between the tribes and between the tribes and the European invaders. The author makes a really interesting point about how the image of the American Indian riding/attacking on horseback is so ingrained into pop culture, and yet most tribes got around on foot. And of the tribes that did use horses, only a scant few actually fought on horseback.

I am a little bit put off by the way that the author is sometimes careless with his language in a way that comes across as a bit, I don't know, biased might be too strong a word. But he talks about how the northern tribeland was so far from "civilization," as if the Native tribes don't count as civilizations. What he means is that they are far from land that has been decisively settled by Americans. He also uses descriptions of the Native groups in an offhand way that I don't always love, like referring to the Comanches as "dark-skinned" apropos of nothing, or referring to the Tonkawa Indians as "occassional cannibals", again apropos of nothing (and not giving the important context that (1) their cannibalism was rumored but never proven and (2) it refers to ritual cannibalism of a killed enemy).

I do appreciate that he is careful to differentiate between the tribes and explain their relationships with each other. Something that is really common is for people to refer to "Native Americans" as if they are one united people, as opposed to being more like a group of nations with distinct cultures, traits, and traditions.

The account of the attack on the Parkers is pretty harrowing.



We all float down here....
Impressions from the first three chapters:

I am enjoying the book so far. My favorite part is undoubtedly the account of the way that the introduction of horses so dramatically changed the power dynamics between the tribes and between the tribes and the European invaders. The author makes a really interesting point about how the image of the American Indian riding/attacking on horseback is so ingrained into pop culture, and yet most tribes got around on foot. And of the tribes that did use horses, only a scant few actually fought on horseback.
I completely agree on this. The introduction of the Mustang by the Spanish, and the fact that they are perfectly suited to live in the American Southwest is fortunate to say the least.
The horsemanship of the Comanche's is amazing. Especially considering that many eastern tribes had never ridden a horse.


I am a little bit put off by the way that the author is sometimes careless with his language in a way that comes across as a bit, I don't know, biased might be too strong a word. But he talks about how the northern tribeland was so far from "civilization," as if the Native tribes don't count as civilizations. What he means is that they are far from land that has been decisively settled by Americans. He also uses descriptions of the Native groups in an offhand way that I don't always love, like referring to the Comanches as "dark-skinned" apropos of nothing, or referring to the Tonkawa Indians as "occassional cannibals", again apropos of nothing (and not giving the important context that (1) their cannibalism was rumored but never proven and (2) it refers to ritual cannibalism of a killed enemy).
Again, I agree. I will say that when you read further you will see the author eviscerate the Federal Government for their absolute inability to deal with, and total lack of understanding of the Comanche.

I do appreciate that he is careful to differentiate between the tribes and explain their relationships with each other. Something that is really common is for people to refer to "Native Americans" as if they are one united people, as opposed to being more like a group of nations with distinct cultures, traits, and traditions.
I agree completely. And I was surprised that the U.S. didn't understand that there was no 'central authority' among the tribes.

The account of the attack on the Parkers is pretty harrowing.
Indeed! Wait until you read of Martha Sherman.



Again, I agree. I will say that when you read further you will see the author eviscerate the Federal Government for their absolute inability to deal with, and total lack of understanding of the Comanche.
He is certainly critical of Americans--like how baffled he is that the Parkers just thought they could waltz deep into mostly unprotected territory and live their lives--but those criticisms seem to be more pointed at individuals or select groups. His references to the different Indian groups are more blanketed, and he sometimes seems to fall into the trap of wanting to make them seem more exotic (like the mention of cannibalism). We've heard about Indians raping white women and also about them taking white children, but not about the reverse. I mean, heck, Andrew Jackson adopted a boy whose family he helped slaughter.



We all float down here....
He is certainly critical of Americans--like how baffled he is that the Parkers just thought they could waltz deep into mostly unprotected territory and live their lives--but those criticisms seem to be more pointed at individuals or select groups.
Keep reading.
His references to the different Indian groups are more blanketed, and he sometimes seems to fall into the trap of wanting to make them seem more exotic (like the mention of cannibalism).
The charge of cannibalism was only directed at one tribe, IIRC. And based on my reading, the Comanche's would rape any woman, not just white.

We've heard about Indians raping white women and also about them taking white children, but not about the reverse. I mean, heck, Andrew Jackson adopted a boy whose family he helped slaughter.
Again, keep reading. While it was not common for whites to take children, there are many accounts of whites caring for orphan natives.

I'm not making a moral judgment here. The Comanche's saw no issue with the way they treated prisoners and we saw no issue with removing them from their land.

There's not really a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy' here imo. It's a clash of different cultures.



The charge of cannibalism was only directed at one tribe, IIRC.
It was--the Tonkawa--but he mentions it in a context where it is completely irrelevant.

While it was not common for whites to take children, there are many accounts of whites caring for orphan natives.
I mean, the "orphan natives" were orphans because their parents had been killed by the people who were now caring for them. I don't think it's all that different.

Here is an example of what I think is some cognitive dissonance: "In the moral universe of the West . . . a person who tortures or rapes another person or who steals another person's child and then sells him cannot possibly be seen [as heroic or noble]."

And yet those descriptors, which Gwynne is applying to the Comanche, easily apply to anyone who engaged in the slave trade, including plenty of Americans thought of as heroic or noble.

I agree that morals are culturally relative. I'm just finding it interesting that many aspects of the Comanche lifestyle that are considered "savage" are not that far removed from behaviors of Europeans/Americans.



A system of cells interlinked
With a book of this nature, this may prove impossible, but I hope to avoid falling into too much back and forth on concepts such as moral high ground or what actually constitutes savagery etc. That said, here are my two cents!

I think a case can be made for most/all of the factions involved being both victims and aggressors at various times throughout history, but I did get the idea that some of the tribes that tended to be a bit more on the peaceful side got the sharp end of the stick far more than they gave it to others, both from the settlers and the more aggressive and warlike tribes. Personally, I will try to keep in mind how difficult it can be to keep perspective on the times, without my opinion being colored by the cultural norms and politics of current day.

I do try to imagine what would have happened if colonials had showed up at a later date: would the Comanche have wiped out most of the other tribes, decimating or assimilating the less warlike tribes, or as the opening chapters infers, would they have been satisfied with only taking over part of the land mass, leaving the rest to live in relative peace? What tribes were wiped out before our history of the continent begins, what tribal civilizations were lost before the events of of the colonial landings? I presume there is at least some partial record kept on the subject, and I would be curious to check that out at some point.

Anyway, I am about 3 chapters in so far. Good stuff!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



We all float down here....
I think a case can be made for most/all of the factions involved being both victims and aggressors at various times throughout history, but I did get the idea that some of the tribes that tended to be a bit more on the peaceful side got the sharp end of the stick far more than they gave it to others, both from the settlers and the more aggressive and warlike tribes.
Well said. I think history shows us that the more agrarian tribes, mostly from the east but some from the southwest, did get the short end of the stick from both sides.

What struck me was the lack of a 'central' or true leader among many of the tribes. A concept unknown to the Army and the Federal gov. They couldn't get their head around the fact that a treaty with one band of Comanche's was not binding on all Comanche's. It's easy to see how this would lead to mistrust and retribution when the real issue was a simple misunderstanding and/or lack of knowledge about the Comanche hierarchy. This lack of knowledge was only compounded by the Comanche's brutal treatment of prisoners.



A system of cells interlinked
It's easy to see how this would lead to mistrust and retribution when the real issue was a simple misunderstanding and/or lack of knowledge about the Comanche hierarchy. This lack of knowledge was only compounded by the Comanche's brutal treatment of prisoners.
Indeed. Pair this with the tribe...I want to say it was the Tonkawa, that at that point had a massive vendetta against the Comanche, which led them to volunteer as scouts and guides in the hunt for the Comanche - I am sure this colored the viewpoint of the federal forces and leadership at the time.

It's a tough issue, and while an argument can be made that the settlers, especially those on the extreme fringe, were in a way victims of so-called savagery, there is also a clear argument seeing them as the vanguard of a coming invasion, which incensed the Comanche, sending them into a blood rage. At no point will I defend the Comanche methods, which were clearly savage, but at the same time, the settlers weren't blameless in the situation. As I inferred before, these were brutal times all around. Glad I am alive now, and not then!



Little behind on this but I've just started and finished the first chapter.

So far so good. Got a good idea of the savagery of the setting, as well as no holds barred guerilla warfare that was going on between the two sides.

The final image of the first chapter was great. So blunt but perfectly sets up just how terrifying the chief can be when in battle.



A system of cells interlinked
I did not need to read the events of chapter 4 while I was eating breakfast this morning! Holy crap...


Oh, and the book answered my question about the Comanche I asked yesterday. They didn't transform into the warlike juggernaut the became until horses were introduced my the Spanish.



We all float down here....
I did not need to read the events of chapter 4 while I was eating breakfast this morning! Holy crap...
Martha Sherman?

Oh, and the book answered my question about the Comanche I asked yesterday. They didn't transform into the warlike juggernaut the became until horses were introduced my the Spanish.
Yes, and by the time Americans came along they had had over 300 years of practice to perfect their craft.



We all float down here....
When the end comes for the Comanche's it comes much faster than I imagined. My take is there were 3 primary factors that aligned and signaled the end.

1. Civil War - The advances in weapon technology, specifically the Henry and the Spencer repeating rifle along with revolvers that could be reloaded very quickly and easily in the field gave a huge advantage to those that had them... us.

2. The Buffalo Hunters - The speed with which they were able to decimate herds that had numbered in the millions is almost unimaginable. This had dire consequences for the Comanche's. I think many people believe, I did, that this was a tactic used by the Army to intentionally starve the Comanche. Turns out it wasn't initially, it was simple market forces. When a Buffalo hide could bring $3.50, and they were very easy to kill with a high-powered rifle, everyone wanted some of the easy money. It was only later that the Army became aware of the effect this was having on the Comanche.

3. Political will in D.C. - For a while after the Civil War, U.S. Grant as POTUS, tried to find and maintain peace with the Comanche's. When he had had enough and was convinced that it wouldn't work he sent in Sherman, Sheridan and McKenzie. All battle hardened and excellent leaders. Prior to this there wasn't any political will to subdue the Comanche's.



We all float down here....
You can listen to a short (24 min.) interview with the author here:

https://www.npr.org/2011/05/20/13643...omanche-empire

In the Kindle ver. there are 'book club' questions at the end. I found the following one to be interesting.

(paraphrasing)

Had the Comanche's not been able to stop the Spanish from moving northward out of Mexico and the French from moving westward out of Louisiana, would America be different today?



The Adventure Starts Here!
I did not need to read the events of chapter 4 while I was eating breakfast this morning! Holy crap...


Oh, and the book answered my question about the Comanche I asked yesterday. They didn't transform into the warlike juggernaut the became until horses were introduced my the Spanish.
Okay, I'm starting to think we should set down some sort of deadline(s) about when to finish either the whole book or at least certain sections/chapters. I'm starting chapter 3 today and am now avoiding coming into this thread because people ahead of me are posting things that feel a tad bit spoilerish. Guess I should read faster!



We all float down here....
Okay, I'm starting to think we should set down some sort of deadline(s) about when to finish either the whole book or at least certain sections/chapters. I'm starting chapter 3 today and am now avoiding coming into this thread because people ahead of me are posting things that feel a tad bit spoilerish. Guess I should read faster!
Perhaps that would be best after all.

I'm just not sure what the best way to do it would be.

Suggestions?



It's a 320 page book (not counting notes).

Maybe set a pace of being on page 100 by the end of this week (~the 14th), page 200 by the 21st, and finished by the end of the month?

Is that too fast a clip for some people? It works out to about a chapter a day (the chapters seem to mostly be ~15 pages).



The Adventure Starts Here!
It's a 320 page book (not counting notes).

Maybe set a pace of being on page 100 by the end of this week (~the 14th), page 200 by the 21st, and finished by the end of the month?

Is that too fast a clip for some people? It works out to about a chapter a day (the chapters seem to mostly be ~15 pages).
I can definitely work with that.