Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
On November 29, 1864, Colonel John Chivington’s volunteer regiments attacked a Native American encampment where their violence became unchecked in doing so slaughtering women, children and elderly. In A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling over Memory of San Creek Ari Kelman is a detailed study of Sand Creek by exploring the different memories of the event, determining the event as massacre or battle, and by offering the narration through place. The problem is determined by when the events actually happen and where it occurred. Kelman is able to be as detailed as possible by using the Cheyenne and Arapaho oral traditions, archaeology, and cartography.
A Misplaced massacre seeks to challenge the popular rhetoric that “memorialization has palliative qualities” (pg. 4) and that erecting monuments in remembrance has a way of providing closure for the past. This is not case. Rather, Kelman portrays how individuals and communities can denounce the integration of a nationalistic memory and rather chose the anti-colonial resistance portrayal of what occurred at Sand Creek. Kelman states “the Native people who helped to create Sand Creek historic site rejected what they saw as a hollow offer of painless healing and quick reconciliation at the opening ceremony” (pg. 5). The Cheyenne and Arapaho voices argued that the site also needed to tell the story about the massacre from the Native perspective and to acknowledge their heritage.
Similar points that VANNOYJ had mentioned in their earlier post, the crux of the book really focuses on the difference between memorialization and historical records. I felt that Kelman is able to provide agency, a topic discussed often in this class, to a topic that for the most part would get its typical American federal history mark and move on. But rather what makes his book so fascinating is the struggle the Cheyenne and Arapaho have in making sure that does not happen. They are trying to provide agency to their ancestors and heritage in order to make sure all narratives are being displayed for the Sand Creek Massacre … not the ones the Federal government wants us to hear regarding the ill treatment of Natives. Kelman states, “the memorial would help them preserve their cultural practices, securing their future by venerating the past. For these activists, the site would serve tribal rather than federal interests” (pg. 6).
Unlike the Comanche Empire, the Native voices within this book can defiantly be heard. One of the things I enjoyed the most about this book was the oral history component Kelman is able to use. He was able to use a lot of primary sources, direct quotes from tribal leaders & the National Forest, political interviews, and historical interviews to give an excellent portrayal of how Cheyenne and Arapaho push their agency through the sand Creek site.
The other aspect I wanted to acknowledge was by HIGBEEJONATHAN when he discusses the positive attributes of the work. I defiantly agree that one of the compelling attributes is when Kelman acknowledges that historians need to seek out other methods or theoretical inventions that may not lie in just history. To artfully portray a full big picture understanding of Sand Creek you had to do it the way Kelman did. You needed to see out history, humanities, social sciences, archeology and social history to paint the picture of the federal and Native memory of Sand Creek.