I'm honestly puzzled by the desire of western historians to tame the 1889-90 Ghost Dance,

making it into a religion of accommodation,

instead of (what I think it was), an anti-colonial movement.

A short thread: Elliot West's monumental new book Continental Reckoning objects to characterizing the Ghost Dance as "reactionary, a reflex to reverse the unstoppable flow of events"

My article refuting Gary Anderson’s denial of genocide during the California Gold Rush has been published by AICRJ.

A thread about why I wrote the article and its arguments (if you don’t have access, DM me and I’ll send a pdf). As I was writing a chapter on California for vol. 2 of Surviving Genocide I realized that I had to look at Anderson’s argument that genocide did not happen in California (made in Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian [2015] and a forum in Western Historical Quarterly [2016])

Was the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre a massacre?

I was dismayed to learn today from @develvishist that a 2019 publication by a prestigious academic press @OxUniPress @OUPHistory claims Wounded Knee was not a massacre.

A thread on why OUP should retract this publication: The claim that WK was not a massacre appears in this book:

"In Harm's Way: A History of the American Military Experience."

It purports to be "the most current, comprehensive, clear, yet concise survey of US military history from colonial times to the twenty-first century."

A year ago Trump’s 1776 Commission decided to honor MLK day by releasing its REPORT!

Let’s have a look at a few of the slimy ways the commissioners appropriated MLK for their reactionary* agenda.

*Note: I did not say conservative. In defense of American exceptionalism and upholding colorblind white supremacy, the 1776 Report opportunistically quoted MLK upholding the values of the Declaration of Independence.

In 1960, the great Dakota artist Oscar Howe painted "Wounded Knee Massacre," which I am posting today on the 132nd anniversary of the massacre, along with Howe's own little-known commentary on the painting. In describing Wounded Knee, Howe wrote, "I have kept the painting semi-objective rather than abstract. It was not meant to be a shocker but merely a recorded true event." (yet, it really is a shocker!)

Catching up on some of the responses by Jeffrey Flynn-Paul to criticisms of his Spectator piece. I'm struck by their fundamental dishonesty. Here's why: In this one F-P says his essay is "mostly a response" to a BBC piece. That's just not true. In the Spectator he writes, "as this piece was going to press, an article was published by the BBC." He had written the whole thing BEFORE the BBC thing caught his attention.

A very long thread about Jeffrey Flynn-Paul’s Spectator essay on the “myth” that the U.S. and Canada are built on lands stolen from Indigenous nations.
bit.ly/2ER0ozt Karl Jacoby and I pitched a rebuttal to the Spectator. Crickets from them, so I guess they aren’t interested in what people who know something about the scholarly literature have to say. (Not surprising, we know.)

The ghost of Frederick Jackson Turner and the dreaded f-word have risen again, it seems.

#Twitterhistorians scoffing at this, rightly so, no doubt, but it's worth thinking about why we hate FJT. Many reasons we hate FJT, but here are two:

1) frontier thesis was celebratory, assumed white supremacy, i.e., racist

2) leaves out Indigenous people

I see that Ben Shapiro has decided he is an expert on genocide and Indigenous peoples in the U.S.

A few thoughts on why he doesn't know what he's talking about (and also why although he pretends to care about history, he doesn't).

bit.ly/3fGKy6N His opening move is the same old same old: all the Indians died from disease so it's ridiculous to talk about genocide.

(In fairness to Shapiro, I suppose, lots of Ph.D. historians say this too, and not all of them worship Trump).

It was inevitable that a zoonotic disease would become a pandemic.

A counterfactual exercise in asymmetrical polarization:

What if the pandemic had happened under Obama? What if it had happened under Bush the second? Obama would have done reasonable things. Listen to scientists, patiently educate the public, steer a intelligent response.

But he would have faced massive opposition from Republicans.

This AP article comparing BLM protests in Portland to the Bundy occupation of Malheur in 2016 misleading frames the issue as subjective political perceptions.

Misses several big differences.

bit.ly/2BxRDbV 1. The 2016 Malheur occupiers actually took over federal property. Portland protesters have not taken over federal property. A very small minority have messed with a fence, done some graffiti, and set a few small fires.

Catching up on books on American southwest, including the ever popular Hampton Sides Blood and Thunder.

Here's some nonsense: Sides says Indians had great fear of artillery and thought howitzers could "shoot holes through the earth and kill on the far side of mountains." What is the evidence for this?

Sides cites a "prominent western historian." Who, I wonder?

It's good that the NY Times published this article by @jackhealyNYT. Quotes the brilliant Muskogee (Creek) poet Joy Harjo and other Muskogees on meaning of #McGirt SCOTUS decision.

But the article makes a big mistake about U.S. policy of Indian removal.

nyti.ms/3h0FsDz The article implies that Indian Removal (enacted in 1830) applied only to the "Five tribes" (Muskogees, Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Seminoles) in the South. But northern nations (Potawatomis, Miamis, Shawnees, Wyandots, Haudenosaunees, others) were also subject to removal.

Frederick Douglass' "What to The Slave Is the Fourth of July" speech (1852) is incredibly powerful.

Two years later, a Native American, John Quinney (Mahican), gave another powerful Fourth of July speech. In contrast to Douglass' speech, which frequently appears on the reading lists of U.S. history courses, Quinney's speech is almost entirely unknown.

It's worth reading.

Typical reactionary response to deny Lakota ownership of the Black Hills.

First, the Lakotas did not steal it from the Cheyennes. There was conflict, but there was also negotiation, intermarriage, shared use and exchange of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1279187613031837702

A thorough study, commissioned by the Park Service, goes into the deep history of the Black Hills.

@MattWalshBlog nothing about this history.

He's just picked up a talking point.

digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark/158/

I am quoted in this Washington Post article about Sioux (Lakota) leaders protesting Trump's fireworks at Mount Rushmore.

The article does a good job of quoting Lakota leaders.

But it mischaracterizes the crucial 1980 Supreme Court decision.

wapo.st/3gp1Q9q Article says "a 1980 Supreme Court decision rejected the Sioux’s claim that the land had been stolen from them."

But United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians actually UPHELD the Sioux position that the taking of the Black Hills (including Mt. Rushmore) was unconstitutional.

Looks like Trump is going to Mt. Rushmore Friday to try to salvage his dying presidency by watching a fireworks display.

Patriotic Americans should support the return of the Black Hills (including Mt. Rushmore) to the Lakota Nation.

Here’s why: According to the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the “Supreme Law of the Land.” That means it is the duty of every patriotic American to uphold treaties.

This includes treaties with Indigenous Nations.

Protestors in Portland, Oregon, tore down statue of George Washington, last night.

Right-wing twitter is in a fury.

Outrage!

Communist mobs!

Antifa terrorists!

Erasure of history!

Evil #1619Project!

Obama!

bit.ly/37LdJTU There may be honest objections to tearing down statues (rather than going through a longer process of discussion, "legal" removal), but most objections to taking down Washington are being made in bad faith.

Great to see statues coming down.

Enslavers, confederate traitors, Columbus.

Who else should come down? Should Andrew Jackson come down?

Prominent statue of him in Lafayette Square, D.C.

Copies in New Orleans, Nashville, Jacksonsville.

Hilarious chapter in Louise Erdrich's novel The Night Watchman.

Mormon missionaries come to the Turtle Mountain Reservation c. 1954. Ojibwe protagonist Thomas sees two young men coming to his house, offers them a cup of water, asks them who they are. They are Elder Elnath and Elder Vernon. Thomas is mystified at 19 year olds calling themselves elders.

While researching the history of American Indians and disease, I've noticed what looks like a colonial discourse of victim blaming. A couple of examples . . . In western Oregon, a terrible epidemic (thought to be malaria) took thousands of lives in the 1830s. Many non-Natives blamed Native healing practices, especially sweat lodges followed by bathing in cold water.