A Century of Dishonor

by Helen Hunt Jackson

Originally published over 100 years ago, A Century of Dishonor is Helen Jackson's eye- opening sketch of the U.S. government's often shameful mishandling of what was called the "Indian problem". Using official documents as authentic research materials, Jackson asserts that the government and citizens of the United States were the cause of the "problems", and not the Native peoples. Broken treaties, inhuman treatment, restricted to reservations unfit for habitation or traditional lifestyle...all of these actions were taken against Indian tribes by a government that treated them with less consideration and compassion than that of a foreign country.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Native American, Politics, Indigenous, Historical

514 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1881

About the author

People know American writer Helen Maria Fiske Hunt Jackson for Ramona (1884), a romantic novel concerning the injustices that Native Americans suffered.

This author, an activist for rights, wrote best about the ill treatment in southern California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_H...

Reviews

[Gina · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is really the "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" of the 19th century, except that the book, and the author's death, came before the Wounded Knee massacre. Therefore, even though many horrible things had happened to the Indians and their situation was dire, she was still writing with hope that something could be done, and that things could get better.

Jackson is very much an elderly lady of that time, so her focus is often on the piety of the converted Indians, and there are many references to poor creatures. However, she also starts off with a surprisingly well-researched legal argument against the numerous treaty violations, and as often as she gets sentimental, she has nonetheless done the research into the practical as well.

The other thing that is interesting is that whereas often other viewpoints sympathetic to the Native Americans are biased towards the preservation of native culture, Jackson was not, and gives many examples of fast adaption to European farming practices, American government practices, desires for property titles and citizenship, and unexpected things like the starting of newspapers. Over a hundred years later, it still has value.

[Missy LeBlanc Ivey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally published in 1881. This e-book is only $.99 on Amazon. If you have Native American blood, then this is a must-read. Although I find Helen Jackson’s writing style and the legalese language of the direct quotes from historic documents makes this one difficult book to read, I do believe it to be a most important and necessary book, closest to the time-period of the Indian Wars, with great genealogical data for anyone researching their ancestry. It’s interesting to note that the author was alive, and only 45 years old, when Sitting Bull was roaming around and raiding and killing the whites in years 1876 and 1877; and when Red Cloud and Spotted Tail bands, who originally roamed the whole Mississippi Valley from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, were removed to the State of Nebraska; and when the Battle of Little Big Horn occurred in Montana in 1876 where Custer was killed along with all 210 of his soldiers of the 7th Calvary of the U.S. Army.
 
Jackson, towards the end of her life, became an avid activist in 1880's for the Native Americans while living in San Francisco, California. The Appendix is chock-full of her letters and visitations to many of the Native American reservations and tribes in California. She provides the current conditions, as of the printing of this book in 1881, of almost all the tribes throughout the US: their numbers, location, and their social and industrial condition. If you are Native American you may find these stats of your ancestry from 1881 very interesting. Otherwise, it's very dry reading.

Jackson's objective was to "show cause for national shame in the matter of the treatment of Native Americans". She mostly presented different treaties and how they were broken between the US government and a few specific major tribes: Delawares, Cheyennes, Nez Perces, Sioux, Poncas, Winnebagoes and Cherokees, along with their many bands, and what events lead up to the massacres: 1) the Conestoga massacres, 2) the Gnadenhutten massacre, and 3) the Apache massacres. All quotations in the book, where the name of the authority was not cited, are from Official Reports of the War Department or from the Department of the Interior.
 
Still, keep in mind when it comes to reading history, finding the 'absolute' truth in major events that changed America's future is nearly impossible to obtain. You usually get versions of the truth. If historians are often found to be biased and persuasive toward their opinions, how much more so the activists. A good book to follow up after this one would be “Rez Life: An Indian’s Journey Through Reservation Life” by Native American David Treuer (2012). The author is from the Ojibwes of northern Minnesota and grew up on the Leech Lake Reservation. He tells you of their history and current plight as of 2012. It appears that territory boundaries were still an issue between Native and non-native Americans. I have extensive notes and thoughts from “Rez Life” here on Goodreads.
 
The author states, on page 57, regarding the atrocities and broken treaties towards the Indians by the US government: "There is not a country, a people, a community in which it would be even attempted!"
 
Well, that is not true at all. In 1599, when the Spanish were discovering and conquering territories in America, specifically New Mexico (a.k.a. New Spain), there they massacred over 800 of the Acoma Pueblos and took over 500 prisoners. But, not only that, of those remaining, they cut off the right foot of the surviving men over age 25 years so they could never run again, and they were forced into slavery for 20 years. Males from 12-25 and females over age 12 were enslaved to government officials and to missions. A great historical novel about this event is told in “The Last Snake Runner” by Kimberley Griffiths Little (2014). Although for young readers, it is a great 5-star read to learn from. You can also Duck Duck Go to read more facts about the Acoma Pueblos Tribe online.
 
My own ancestry, the Acadians who fled France from religious persecution and settled in Nova Scotia, also experienced a displacement back in 1755. After a long back and forth struggle of holding their own and trying to keep their homes from the French, then the British, the Acadians were displaced from Nova Scotia, Canada, by the British government who finally won the war for that territory. At the final moment, the men were called to gather for “meetings” at the local forts and churches, and being unarmed, they were locked inside for a few days while ships pulled into the harbor. Without notice, they were loaded up, their wives and children were also loaded, not caring if the families stayed together or not, and were deported to different ports along America’s east coast (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina...Virginia refused to accept 1,150 Acadians, so these were shipped to England). They figured if they kept them separated, then they wouldn’t be able to gather again and become a force. This is commonly known among the Cajuns today as the “Great Deportation”. Over 10,000 were deported from Nova Scotia, and they estimate that about 53% died from either drowning, disease, or were killed some other way. But, over time, some made it back up to Nova Scotia, many families gathered in Southern Louisiana where the French gave them a helping hand. This is where my family, the LeBlancs and Broussards, ended up.
 
This is the unfortunate nasty and evil truth of past wars while countries were being conquered for ownership, and boundaries marked, throughout world history. The Sand Creek Massacre committed by John Chivington and his troop, described in this book, were absolutely atrocious, over the top and can't be justified in any way. But he's not alone in this evil. Much blood has been shed for territory, for power all over the world by all races and cultures. Every single country is guilty of committing attrocities against other humanbeings, whether it be natives of other countries or even among their very own people. In the words of the 19th century British politician Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Both a product of its time and a transcendence of its time. Jackson's prose is a little difficult to read, but her message is boldly humane. She portrays the First Peoples neither as bloody savages nor as pitiable victims, but human beings struggling to adapt to a rapidly-changing world. Unlike much commentary on the subject of its day, "A Century of Dishonor" pulls no punches and uses no euphemisms in condemning the double-dealing and violence of those who wrested away the Native Americans' land by trickery and force. Tribe by tribe, Jackson shows injustice for what it was. I'd recommend supplementing this with a more modern book ("Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", for instance) in order to bring the scenario up to date, but this is an invaluable part of the picture. Worth a read.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book, a watershed moment in terms of consciousness-raising among white Americans in the battle for Native rights at the end of the nineteenth century. Jackson is a product of her time, and her descriptions of indigenous peoples as "poor creatures," etc. etc. certainly reveal that. Additionally, one of her main arguments for better treatment of Natives lies in her belief in chivalry, and the necessity of the government protecting those she considers weak. But while she dabbles in chivalry and sentimentalism, she is also dedicated to critically deconstructing the self-congratulatory propaganda the government issued regarding its dealings with Native tribes. Again and again she quotes from official reports and correspondence between government officials, and then demolishes their "arguments" with a thoroughly modern sarcasm. Her research is intimidatingly thorough, and is presented to educate her audience both into sympathy for Natives and into critical agitation against the government's duplicitous dealings with Natives. She sets a high standard for nineteenth century reform literature.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to read this book after having learned of the author from Pearson's book on the Nez Perces tribe which I read a few months ago. Jackson was known for her tireless efforts beginning in the 1880's to help Native Americans in their efforts to regain possession of their lands lost in their dealings with white settlers and the US government.

The title of this book says it all: with a thorough review of government reports, letters from various government officials and private citizens involved with the NA people, and interviews of some NA chiefs the author demonstrates forcefully and passionately the extent to which the government oppressed, abused, and in many ways cheated tribes out of the lands they had lived on for generations. The prose is a bit stilted/late 19th century in style in places. But it is still quite readable and provides a thorough, textured, and nuanced, albeit distressing, accounting of the interactions which took place between a few tribes and the US government over the course of the late 18th and most of the 19th centuries. The only thing Jackson might have added was the extent to which the people died from starvation, the cold, and/or disease during their travails of being forced off their lands to so called Indian Country in Oklahoma.

I gave up reading it after 4 chapters plus one appendix, each of which was focused on a different tribe, because it was clear by then what points Jackson wanted to make. It became a case of 'the lyrics being slightly different but the music was the same.' For those interested in more detail there are also appendices with copies of reports on various massacres which took place, on impressions of the 'character' of the NA people living in the Northwest, and on efforts by citizens in the courts and with the Interior Department in 1880 to help the Ponca tribe regain possession of their lands in western Oregon.

Although I did not read this book in its entirety, I would still give it a 4 star rating for a number of reasons. First, it is thoroughly researched. Second, it is highly informative. Third, it is quite readable.

Jackson wrote a study of the experiences of the NA peoples on the missions in California and a best selling novel about this topic as well. Perhaps I will read those in the coming months.

[Joshua Hedlund · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before reading this book, I had a vague sense of the injustices done to the Native Americans, and an even vaguer notion that Helen Hunt Jackson had been an early advocate for them. This book is not a generalized tale of "how we killed the Indians and stole their land," making philosophical cases against manifest destiny or emotional humanitarian arguments about their welfare, the likes of which could be countered or dismissed by those of more nationalistic fervor. Rather, the book quite simply holds our own government to its own standards, quoting extensively from official reports, describing numerous treaties that our government made with various tribes and how our government repeatedly failed to uphold them, with all the tragic and outrageous consequences that resulted.

Published in 1881, much of Jackson's writing would be considered politically incorrect today, such as calling the people "Indians" or the implicit superiority behind discussions of improving these primitive barbarians into the wonders of civilization. Yet interestingly, Jackson describes many tribes as earnestly desiring to give up "the hunt" for modern life - though perhaps with some resigned recognition of the reality that their buffalo grounds were rapidly disappearing. We read multiple examples of tribes building houses, farms, schools, mills, publishing newspapers, even establishing elections and legislatures - making it all the more tragic when they were forced time and time again to uproot and start over somewhere else.

Things started out with so much potential. Jackson quotes from early presidents and secretaries and official documents recognizing the default right of the native tribes to the land and the necessity of the early Americans to purchase additional land from them under fair and voluntary conditions and treat them as human equals. But that was when the vast plains of America seemed endless. As white settlers inexorably pushed westward, land was technically bought and treaties were technically signed, but the promised money frequently didn't arrive, the promised protections of property (i.e. from theft by whites) were forgotten, the promised establishment of Indian land allotments never given. One chapter and tribe at a time, Jackson describes the litany of broken promises, along with other indignities, mistreatments, and absurdities. With a pointed pen, she shows the contradictions of justifying the cheap acquisition of land that was "valueless" to Indians but "absolutely necessary" for white farmers even as the government was simultaneously "making every effort train into farmers" and "civilize" the Indians! But the oppression came from every level of American society; the Winnebagoes in Minnesota and the Cherokee in Georgia were forced to move by prejudiced locals. Some of these removals were really forced death marches through thunderstorms and floods, with lost supplies and nothing ready upon their exhausted arrival upon lower quality soil, and little incentive to rebuild with the specter of another move coming down the line.

One thing the book made me curious about, with its many descriptions of Indians settling down into agriculture and industry, was the legal status of their property rights of the time. The book assumes some 19th-century awareness that I do not have of the use of real estate terms like "severalty" and "patent" and "allotment." While the chapters paint broader strokes, the appendices provide some more individual details, many focused on California, that suggests that whatever the apparent legal status of private rights to land, white private claims could pretty much replace and supersede them, and the unequal value placed on Indian lives, by both individual settlers and the enforcers of laws at local and national levels, was pretty apparent. The appendices also include some interesting editorial correspondence between Jackson and some opponents, adding some nuance to her polemical work with perspectives that, while not justifying the activities described therein, do shed some light on the contemporary disagreements about what led up to them and the challenges of figuring out what to do about it afterward.

Perhaps most tragically, from a theological perspective, is that many of these tribes had converted to Christianity through the work of missionaries, often displaying a more faithful example of their Savior through their patient suffering than their persecutors who claimed the same God, ironically using the Old Testament conquests of "heathens" to justify their actions. (While Jackson acknowledges some Indian atrocities, she insists on demonstrating that the white man could be just as barbaric.)

Though these realities are quite bleak, there are some glimmers of light, especially later in the history via the the results of the activism that Jackson herself was a part of. While the courts, including the Supreme, denied some petitions, Jackson describes the court victory of the Ponca tribe's Standing Bear against a particular injustice, along with his moving speech that he would lay his tomahawk down because in the judicial system he had "found a better way". The government also acknowledged the injustices done to the Winnebagoes, and even though it relocated them yet again it did so to a better location with more support (though Jackson closes with the anxieties and plans of further potential relocations).

While full of important history, it should be noted that the book is quite long, with extensive quotes from other source materials that simultaneously make it powerful and tedious. There's some abstract (and to modern eyes, somewhat odd) philosophy at the beginning to slog through, and other minute details that have lost context in the passage of time (which reminds me, you'll find it helpful to know or remember that "Indian Territory" refers to a large chunk of present-day Oklahoma where the government was "consolidating" numerous tribes in the 1800's). It's also unclear how reliable the author's descriptions or interpretations may be of some of the historical events with little more than eyewitness evidence, although her focus on official government reports limits the downside considerably. All in all, though, it's a valuable and educational effort to acknowledge how the government and people of the United States failed to see and treat the Native Americans as human beings of the same value as themselves, and how the tireless efforts of people like Jackson worked to change that. It's just a shame that such progress came too late for too many.

[Carol · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed account of the shameful treatment of our native people by the U.S. government and military. The worst of it is that it happened over and over to tribes across the nation. Those who look at reservations and decry the lack of initiative or rampant alcoholism can find the source of those problems in this book - relocated tribes were contractually promised payment for land that was never paid and training and tools promised so that natives could earn a living and farm on the reservation were never delivered. So maddening.

[Brian Sollors · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good! Amazing how much Jackson cared about the well being of the Native Americans and their rights as human beings during a time most could care less. For me the best part about this book was the fact that it was written back in the 1880's. Her attitude and values were ahead of her time. She was in the minority during a time when Native American's were thought of as less than human. If you like history this book is probably on of the best I have read in a long time.

[Amanda Fredlund]

Am currently reading this for my Native Peoples of the Northern Plains course at the University of Manitoba and it really is such a significant text. It sets the stage for todays current aboriginal issues, giving readers a deeper understanding of the violations done towards the indigenous peoples of America. Heartbreaking and emotional, this book with leave you with more than just a little bit of anger towards the colonizers of north america..

[Ostap Bender · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that truly lives up to the adjective landmark, as it was written in 1881 and the first to shine a light on the genocide of Native Americans, one of the two original sins of the United States.

Helen Hunt Jackson documented the conduct of European colonizers towards usually friendly Native Americans from seven tribes all over the country, and in so doing, clear patterns emerge, heartbreaking in their cruelty: continual treaty-making that gave Natives land, money, and equipment for farming, which was followed immediately by the United States Senate not ratifying or living up to the treaty, and colonizers squatting on the lands that had been declared sovereign. Any hostile act on the part of angered Natives met with asymmetrical responses to any and all Natives, even of different tribes. Outright massacres of Natives, sometimes after luring Natives in under the guise of a peaceful meal together, with butchery of the elderly, women, and children that is almost unimaginable. Even as Natives succeeded in adopting European ways, e.g. farming and schooling, white people motivated by greed and hatred continued to take land from them, with people in several states refusing to allow them to live there, which in turn meant new treaties, smaller land grants on worse land, and horrifying forced marches under brutal conditions. Lastly, turning reservations into what were essentially concentration camps, and deliberately starving Native Americans. We see all of this in each of the tribes Jackson covers, and her book is by no means complete.

Objectively speaking, it’s clear who the real “savages” were – and it makes my blood boil that Hollywood portrayed it in the reverse way in the century which followed, and American history was (and in many cases still is) taught in such a whitewashed manner.

To anyone who has read later history texts very little of what Jackson records is going to come as a surprise, and there are other books you should probably read first if you’re relatively new to the subject, such as Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, The Trail of Tears, or An American Genocide. However considering when this one was written, just when most of the genocide had been completed, right after Reconstruction ended and heading into a long interval where race relations were at their nadir – it’s extraordinary that a woman did extensive research and compiled the truth about a country that was (and is) pretty proud of itself. Indeed, the book went out of print until 1964, as the country simply did not want to acknowledge its crimes against humanity. For those reasons it’s essential reading to me.

Some quotes:
Chief Pachgantschilias of the Delawares on the white man (1787):
“I admit that there are good white men, but they bear no proportion to the bad; the bad must be the strongest; for they rule. They do what they please. They enslave those who are not of their color, although created by the same Great Spirit who created them. They would make us slaves if they could; but as they cannot do it, they kill us. There is no faith to be placed in their words. They are not like the Indians, who are only enemies while at war, and are friends in peace. They will say to an Indian, ‘My friend; my brother!’ They will take him by the hand, at the same moment, destroy him.

Chief Sitting Bull of the Sioux (~1876):
“Tell them at Washington if they have one man who speaks the truth to send him to me, and I will listen to what he has to say.”

Unknown chief of the Cherokees (~1740):
“Why these are Christians at Savannah. Those are Christians at Frederica. Christians get drunk! Christians beat men! Me no Christian!”
And later:
“He that is above knows what he made us for. We know nothing; we are in the dark; but white men know much. And yet white men build great houses as if they were to live forever. But white men cannot live forever. In a little time white men will be dust as well as I.”

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the strong undertones of Christian superiority and paternalism (I suggest skipping the preface and introduction- they don’t really add anything that isn’t in the main text), this is an unrelenting and important compilation and narrative of primary sources on the atrocities committed against Indigenous people in the US. Just when you think you might understand the nature and scope of the horrors, it continues to prove you wrong and go deeper, even with the repetition of broken treaties, lies, and coercion. And this is only a narrow window into the history of seven tribes during this period. And this was published in 1881. I will definitely pair this with more current accounts, especially from Indigenous authors and perspectives.

“What an inconceivable spectacle to us to-day: the governments of Pennsylvania and New York so fully recognizing an Indian to be a “person,” and his murder to be anxiously and swiftly atoned for if possible! … Verily, Policy has kept a large assortment of spectacles for Justice to look through in a surprisingly short space of time.” (302)

“It makes little difference where one opens the record of the history of the Indians; every page and every year has its dark stain. The story of one tribe is the story of all, varied only by differences of time and place; but neither time nor place makes any difference in the main facts. Colorado is as greedy and unjust in 1880 as was Georgia in 1830, and Ohio in 1795, and the United States government breaks promises now as deftly as then, and with the added ingenuity from long practice… There are hundreds of pages of unimpeachable testimony on the side of the Indian; but it goes for nothing, is set down as sentimentalism or partisanship, tossed aside and forgotten. President after president has appointed commission after commission… It would probably be no exaggeration to say that not one American citizen out of ten thousand ever sees them or know they exist, and yet any one of them, circulated throughout the country, read by the right-thinking, right-feeling men and women of this land, would be of itself a ‘campaign document’ that would initiate a revolution which would not subside until the Indians’ wrongs were, so far as is now left possible, righted…To assume that it would be easy, or by any one sudden stroke of legislative policy possible, to undo the mischief and hurt of the long past, set the Indian policy of the country right for the future, and make the Indians at once safe and happy, is the blunder of a hasty and uninformed judgment… However great perplexity and difficulty there may be in the details of any and every plan possible for doing at this late day anything like justice to the Indian, however hard it may be for good statesmen and good men to agree upon the things that ought to be done, there certainly is, or ought to be, no perplexity whatever, no difficulty whatever, in agreeing upon certain things…” (340)

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

“In regard to the actions of individuals there is rarely much room for discussion whether they be honorable or dishonorable, the standard of honor in men’s conduct being, among the civilized, uniform, well understood, and undisputed. Stealing, for instance, is everywhere held to be dishonorable, as well as impolitic; lying, also, in all its forms; breaking of promises in the trails of trust our scorned even among the most ignorant people. But when it comes to the discussion of the acts of nations, there seems to be less clearness of conception, less uniformity of standard of right and wrong, honor and dishonor. it is necessary, therefore, in charging a government or nation with dishonorable conduct to show that its moral standard ought in nowise differ from the moral standard of an individual; that what is cowardly, cruel, base in a man is cowardly cruel this in a government or nation” (18).

“So long as there remains on our frontier one square mile of land occupied by a weak and helpless owner, there will be a strong and unscrupulous frontiersman ready to seize it, and a weak and unscrupulous politician, who can be hired for a vote or for money, to back him. The only thing that can stay this is a mighty outspoken sentiment and purpose of the great body of the people” (30).

“Justice as well as policy requires that we should make some remuneration for the damages these Indians sustain in consequence of the destruction of their game, timber, etc. by the whites passing through their territory” (70).


“The word ‘extermination’ is as ready on the frontiersman’s tongue today as it was a hundred years ago; and the threat is more portentous now, seeing that we are, by a whole century of prosperity, stronger and more numerous, and the Indians are, by a whole century of suffering and oppression, fewer and weaker. But our crime is baser and our infamy deeper in the same proportion” (308).

“These are but four massacres out of scores, whose history, if written, would prove as clearly as do these, that, in the long contest between white men and Indians, the Indian has not always been the aggressor, and that treachery and cruelty are by no means exclusively Indian traits” (335).

“It makes little difference, however, where one opens the record of the history of the Indians; every page and every year has its dark stain. The history of one tribe is the history of all, varied only by differences of time and place; but neither time nor place makes any difference in the main facts. Colorado is as greedy and undress in 1880 as was Georgia in 1830, and Ohio in 1795; and the United States government breaks promises now as deftly as then, and with an added ingenuity from long practice” (337).

[Rhuff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has long been the go-to source for the history of US-native relations. In meticulous detail, "eastern liberal" activist Mrs. Helen Hunt Jackson recounted the origin of this war of settler-colonial conquest and the vindictive treatment of conqueror over conquered. Of special note is her description of difference between British and American approaches: whereas the native nations could be seen as equal subjects of one king, the Americans were about the promotion of rights which Indians, as non-citizens, could not share. (Where have we heard this one before, AIPAC?)

There seems to be no treaty unbroken ever signed between Washington and each affected nation. "White man speaking with forked tongue" - "say one thing, mean another" - remains standard procedure among American politicians who, of course, usually begin their public careers as lawyers. For native leaders, whose word was binding law and could themselves suffer immediate recall or death for breaking it, the American example gave them every reason to disrespect such pacts. Hence the meticulous detail of officials and military men in spelling out native breaches, to justify their own. Frequently there was no need for even that subterfuge, as Mrs. Jackson writes concerning the expulsion of the Cherokee. They were simply in the way of land speculators and legislative PACs.

Fast forward to today's "indispensable nation", "shining on its hill," and we see the inspiring legacy continues. In 1989, the great fathers in Washington came to Red Man in East and promised not one inch of expansion; now lawyers of Great White Father write "we meant no such things, and you were fool for believing us." Then it's the Minsk Accords: "we agree just to give the loyal tribe time to arm against evil war chief Putin." Geronimo and Cochise were but the precursors for Castro and Qaddafi, while the current Wounded Knee of Gaza is the necessary spoilage of Manifest Destiny.

Properly read, this work is not only an historic document, but as relevant as your morning newsfeed. It's not that the other side were (or are) "noble savages," but that the claims of nobility at the core of ethnic cleansing and genocide are always visibly hollow from the first. The "original sin" of the United States was not just slavery, but the violence of conquest with the Old Testament as the real constitution at work.

Keep this book at your side as the minions of Washington mouth on about their "right to protect."

[Tinylittlewars · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a dishonor! I don't know how it got such a high rating on here because it is a truly a thing of horror. I suppose it has its historical value, and perhaps a more generous soul than I would qualify their criticism with a nod to the fact that the views expressed within it were surely progressive for their time, and likely to be far less atrocious than the average, but sorry, in my opinion there's still no excuse for voicing such utter bulls**t. It was written in 1885, not the dark ages-- and even then, there would have been no justification for holding such primitive, bigoted views as are expressed in this piece of trash. It certainly does offer a vivid portrayal of the derangement of white, or more accurately white Christian, arrogance however. If you don't mind vomiting every few pages then this one is for you, otherwise I'd pass!

[Emelia · Rating 2 out of 5]

she’s just airing her grievances against the government without ever telling the indigenous people’s stories. it’s all HER. the white woman sweeping into the battlefield and compiling a sprawling list of the us government’s atrocities, saving the day. but what about the indigenous people’s perspective? did Helen Jackson write this with them in mind at all, going so far as go even quote or use them as a source ONE TIME in this whole damned book. nope, not once. all the sources are white, white as pearl, white as her skin and white as the lies she tells in this book

[Jessie (Saffity) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very informative but heavy book. I learned so much about the various First Nations of North America. The fact that there is no sugar coating for what was actually done to these various peoples was something I appreciated. It was difficult to hear what they went through, but learning and knowing the truth allows me to begin to move out of ignorance. The fact that each tribe was given a section to show the differences in their cultures and experiences was interesting. As a Canadian, the mentions of Canada caught my attention too. I listened to this book through LibriVox.

[Sam Whitehill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Written at the tail end of the Indian Wars, this is a classic documentation of US government perfidy towards American Indian nations. It is a dry read, but it excels at pummeling the reader with evidence of US atrocities. The main thrust of the argument is very dated, though, as Jackson complains that if only we could give these Indians a fair shake, we can make civilized Christians out of them yet.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a 5 because of the importance of the topic, that it was an early recounting of an important topic and she self published it to give a copy to each member of congress. It really is a 3 star because the writing style is hard to get through. But holy cats! What we did to the native Americans- and at the time literally thousands of whites were says this is not right, and we just went ahead and did it any way. Again. and Again. and Again.

[Tapiwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

people that would like to fully understand their past need to look at the present and ask how they became what they are.

[Joan Colby · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first and perhaps best of the exhaustive examinations of the U.S. treatment of the Indians, a tragic saga of treachery and broken treaties that to this day continues to minimize the Indians’ claim to lands they inhabited for centuries. Westward Expansion was the watchword of the day which spelled expulsion of the Indians’ basic human rights. One can only describe the depredations committed upon the Indians by the United States Government as a holocaust, as Jackson so cogently does. Not only were treaties routinely broken, the reservation lands touted to the tribes as virtual Edens where their hunting lifestyle could be converted to agriculture, were instead replaced by wastelands without good soil, water, woodlands or minerals. Many of the Indians faithfully observed the negotiations made by their chiefs such as the admirable Chief Joseph who despite repeated betrayals kept his band resolved to peace, understanding that to oppose the white man would only lead to more misery. To be fair, some generals who dealt with the tribes sympathized with their plight, but were unable to obtain fair treatment for them in Washington, a fact that many of the chiefs also understood. Wandering bands of young braves, however, were geared up for warfare and their attacks on settlers were met with massacres of entire villages including women and children. While these actions of the government were well known, the sympathies of the whites were largely with the efforts to exterminate the Indians, many of which, removed from their traditional homelands were transformed into “starving wretches” whose guns were confiscated so they had no means to hunt, who were denied the most basic elements: food, medicine ,housing, while the whiskey traders further insured that the Indians would be even less capable of supporting themselves while the traders made sizeable profits. The “drunken Indian” became a stereotype which the government supported in its goal to ultimately destroy the indigenous natives, while well-meaning missionaries founded Indian schools designed to eradicate their culture. Reparations to this day totaling billions of dollars have never been made to the tribes, that, reduced in size and visibility, languish on the margins of society. Instead, futile actions remove Indian symbols from sports teams or seek to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day. One feels, as Jackson clearly knew in 1881 when her seminal book was published, that the fate of the Indians was long ago sealed by a government determined on expansion at the expense of the original inhabitants The media too failed in attempts to portray the Indian situation—either characterizing them as brutal savages whose cruel tortures were designed to obtain spiritual powers—or as saintly natives led by sages of earth-mother wisdom. Reading Jackson today is a heart-wrenching endeavor. Her story repeated globally wherever colonists viewed natives as impediments to their ambitions.

[Nicole Tanner · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this about 10 years ago and it has stayed with me ever since. It's incredibly dense and detailed (some times ad nauseam) but an excellent work portraying early US-Native American relations. It will open your eyes to the power struggle and greed between "civilized" and indigenous peoples around the world.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read if you se interested in Native American History. Helen Hunt Jackson writes about the treatment of Indians in the 1800s. The American government of that time and their lack of compassion for the rightful owners of this country is revealed. The Natives weren't the single group of savages as they have been portrayed. I recommend this book.

[Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is old. Its relevance has suffered because of its age. Yet it is still an important read. Supplementing this with a more modern book is essential, but ignoring this book because of its age is foolish as long as this sensitive issue remains an issue.

[Robert Hays · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fact that this book still is in print is a strong testament to its value. When it was published in 1881, Helen Hunt Jackson offered America a contemporary version of Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," which by comparison is a retrospective published nearly a century later.

[Pomaflah · Rating 1 out of 5]

It was VERY deeply Christian. Sorry, Helen Hunt Jackson, but not everyone thinks that "Christian" is the same as "moral". Especially not us Jews - oh, you know, that other people Christians have historically slaughtered and robbed.

[Cherie · Rating 2 out of 5]

B An interesting portrayal of how our country treats and treated Am. Ind.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Significant because it was written early. Otherwise, not that good.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am amazed at the generalities in which we so often speak of people groups.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The US government has never honored a treaty that it made with Native Americans. This is the story of that dishonor.

[Francine Fontana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Think you know something about history? Not until you read this. Bone chilling truth about what our government allowed to happen to the American Indian Tribes.