Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Red & White: Indian Views of the White Man 1492–1982 by Annette Rosenstiel

1984; University of Nebraska Press; Volume: 19; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/wal.1984.0149

1948-7142

Daniel F. Littlefield,

Colonialism, slavery, and trade

Reviews 255 Red & White: Indian Views of the White Man 1492-1982. By Annette Rosenstiel. (New York: Universe Books, 1983. 192pages, $14.95.) Red & White is a collection of oral and written statements in which Indians of North and South America express their views of the white man. It contains a chapter for each century since the white man has been in the New World, with selections in each chapter arranged chronologically. Rosen­ stiel has supplied an introduction to the collection, an introduction to each chapter, and a headnote to place each selection in historical perspective. Taken together, these introductory sections present a very general overview of Indian-white relations since 1492. One who reads casually will find this book readable and fast moving. The selections are short and self-contained. Thus the reader is relieved of any requirement to synthesize and can read as much or as little as he chooses at one sitting. Some selections, such as Logan’s letter, are well known, but most are not readily available to the casual reader and therefore will be fresh. Despite these qualities, the critical reader will find some serious weak­ nesses in the volume. First is the matter of translation of the statements of those Indians who did not speak English. The statements are presented at face value with only an occasional comment about the translator. Yet Rosenstiel herself casts doubt on the accuracy of translation from the native language into a European language (pp. 8, 108). The problem iscompounded by the translation of some statements into a continental European language and then into English. Second, the sources are handled awkwardly. The reader who wishes to find the source of a statement must turn to “Notes and Sources” at the back of the book. The sources are arranged by chapter, but no numerical or title indicators relate the sources to selections. The reader must determine the numerical place of a selection in the chapter and then count that far down the list of sources. Third, one wishes that the author had elected not to illustrate the book rather than use illustrations that, for the most part, reflect the white man’s view of the Indian rather than the Indian’sview of the white man. Fourth, the work contains some startling statements that, if true, will rewrite history. For instance, the Cherokee “Trail of Tears” was a “ten-year trek” (p. 106), Cherokee Chief John Ross “advocated” removal while John Ridge “argued for remaining on original Cherokee lands” (p. 107), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in 1834 (p. 108). Finally, the book ends with a dubious selection. Surely, at some time during 1982, someone more qualified to speak made a more poignant state­ ment reflecting the Indian’s view of the white man than did a fictional char­ acter in one of Jamake Highwater’s novels. DANIEL F. LITTLEFIELD, JR. University ofArkansas at Little Rock ...