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
Ari Kelman’s book, A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek, approaches the subject of the events that transpired in the southeast corner of the Colorado in 1864 that at the time were seen as a victory for the Union army and as an unnecessary massacre by the Native Americans. The author attempts to trace this bifurcated history through written documents of that day, and through the oral and spoken testimony of people recalling their own ancestors’ past recollections. He then focuses on analyzing the information gathered, rather than doing away with these narratives which may, or may not, contain false or elaborated memories, which he acknowledges can happen with time, and which he demonstrates using Chivington’s (the U.S. Colonel at Sand Creek) own recollections and reinterpretations of the event throughout his own life.
Kelman decides not to speak for these sources, opting instead to attempt a reconstructive mode that does away with the narrative elements and uses an interpretive mode that encourages and interprets the narratives. He tries to remain neutral and in the background; however, in collecting all these materials, written and oral, by necessity, he is involving himself in the process and in the interpretation of the history of this place. He talks about the tribal traditionalists and their concern that the history of Sand Creek would be written by individuals representing the white federal government and consequently, that it would not be their history. So, while there were some activists within the tribal community who determined to not let the U.S. Government to write the history of this place after declaring it a National Park, the author believes that the practicality of economics of the region also played into to the narratives of other Native American representatives who spoke at the opening ceremony. The author interpreted their speeches as being more “politically correct” than accurate, as they understood the park would draw tourists and much needed income to the area. The author believed that there was a real fear that Federal Government rhetoric would dilute the truth of the actual history of, and the tragedy of the massacre, here.
The author uses as his basis for gaining a perspective on all involved in this history, three well-documented accounts of the Sand Creek events, beginning with Colonel Chivington, who writes to his superiors about his victory over the hostile natives, to Silas Soule, who calls the battle a massacre, and from George Bent who seems to be uncomfortable about it and describes it as an unfounded attack (p. 8). Within these three documents, the interpretation of the event range from its having been a glorious battle to its having been a hideous massacre. Additionally, there is almost complete disagreement about the cause, the political reason for it, and who should be accountable for what happened (p. 8). Part of the problem, which the author writes about, is that people on the both sides of the narrative are defensive and/or uncomfortable. The ancestors of the white settlers of the area don’t want to be portrayed as “bad guys” (p.7) and the present day Native Americans don’t want to create anger over a past event that could hurt their community economically.
Every interview, the author finds, has a component about it that is motivated by political, cultural, and/or social persuasions that revolve around the portrayal and analysis of the events of the Sand Creek. The interviews are awash in ideologies and ideas, movements, government agencies and dealings, political parties and voters, political leaders and cabinet members, with analyses of social, economic, and cultural institutions, and the norms of a people that portray the disconnect with the average common folk of the past and present that could be seen in the “Fugitive Landscape,” where people on the ground are disconnected from the politics, policies of their governments, and the elites going it on their own without people’s consent.
Comparing the study of peoples’ culture of the past and present, focusing on the struggle over understandings and perspectives, and how this struggle affects their view of historical events and memories, confirms the importance of cultural and social history movements. This is well expressed by peer, Robert, with regard to his own view imposing itself into his interpretation of Colonel Chivington’s behavior with respect to this event, “[Robert] had to stop and remember the state of affairs of the Union at the time, what his background was, what he thought and believed in, and what his focus was.” Though, it is definitely left for the reader and future generations to decide how or whether Kelman’s information should be validated.
The book ends with an acknowledgement that there is a real, if terrible and unintended irony, that at the same time the U.S. Government was fighting to free slaves in the South, it was also pushing to expand into Native American territory. It was killing one group of people while fighting a war to save another group (p.278-279). It is difficult to understand how objective observers could hold such vastly differing views of these events, but as Robert pointed out, it may only seem obvious by today’s standards and our more modern perspective from a century and a half later.