Customer Reviews

A New History of the American West , "It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own "

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Richard White work reexamines the American Western History much in the same format as Patty Limerick has. Rather than seeing the United States movement across the continent as a political/military or even industrial happening it strives to write a history of the "place" known as the American West. In doing so, the author's comprehensive history chronicles in 634 pages European arrival in the American West to the modern era 1980s.

The author's work reminds me of that geography theme- human and environmental interaction. He points to how the Spain's introduction of the horse altered life for the plains Indians. (21) Later in chapter five he addresses how various geological surveys and the changed what was know of the west. (135) He illustrates the challenges that the settles experienced in the face of 164-degree changes over the course of one year in the severe Montana climate. (229) No history on the American west would be complete with some time devoted to the railroad as White does on page 247 in the chapter entitled "the West and the World Economy." Yet Whites perspective is that of economics rather than merely industrial expansion and conquest. In doing so the railroads were not the subject history revolved around yet one part of the economic transformation occurring in the American West. Interesting and perhaps obvious to a historian of the West appears on page 142 when the author states that the catalyst for most of the legal changes to the land system stems from the 1862 Homestead, Pacific Railroad Grant, and Morrill Acts passed by Congress during the Civil War. Perhaps the author could have better stated that it was the war and the resulting absence of Southern representation that enabled this long debated westward movement legislation to clear the gridlock of antebellum politics.

White in the spirit of Limerick and other "New Western Historians" does an excellent job of illustration a multicultural, multiethnic, multi-political, and gender rich history of the land west of Missouri. At numerous occasions, he interjects the diversity of the American West throughout its history. Examples of this are the section on Red Cloud and his white-Indian culture, (105) the portrayal of Mexican-American migration during the war years, (504) the birth of Kearney's Workingmen's Party centered around nativist attitudes of the late nineteenth century, (334) and most memorable melting pot that was the California Gold Rush. (189) It was interesting to see how White's work influenced a later work - Susan Lee Johnson's Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush (2000) which focused entirely on such issues over one period of Western History and did it so well it garnished a Bancroft Prize.

"The Imagined West" is White's final chapter and in it, the author demystifies and explains how the History of West has taken on a sort of folklore quality. Naturally, the fictional efforts of Buffalo Bill (614) and Owen Wister (621) are attributed for part of the myths about the West. However in addition, are real actors in this history that appear bigger than life such as George Armstrong Custer (625) and Kit Carson (616). One criticism of the author is that he, like most "New Western Historians," ignores the impact of Turner's Thesis unless it is to debunk it, which by the way is easily done. Yet an argument can be made that Turner was correct in that the West was a "place" unique to the American Experience unlike anything in Europe and special in its own right. One would think if an author was writing about the West, as a "place" credit would be given to the historian famous for this identification. Although White never mentions Turner this is done mildly with the citation by Henry Thoreau on page 620.

In terms of style, the book is an easy and quick read despite its behemoth size. Most frustrating is the author's lack of notes. In five years of graduate school, the reader has yet to come across a book the void of any footnote or endnotes. Furthermore, the publisher - Oklahoma Press is probably the primer research university on this subject and noted for quality historical documentation. The reader was subjected to never-ending frustration due to this omission. Where is White get information for example, "As one historian of expansion has noted, the United States had acquired 100-horsepower empire, but only a 10-horsepower government to manage it. . ." ? (84) Another example centers around statistical information, "The death rate on the trail was about 3 percent, or about 10,000 people in all, compared to a death rate of 2.5 percent in America society as a whole." (199) Had a note be added it only would lend the author greater credibility. On the other hand, White's unorthodox historical approach pays off when he releases a zinger like, "The Texans accomplished all this amidst revolutionary maneuverings more appropriate to Groucho than Karl Marx." (68)

If you are a historian, this book should definitely be on your shelf. It is packed full of New Western History ideals. Despite its topical form, the book still allows for a firm grasp of the chronology. White has woven a single volume that integrates, with fludity and detail, the most critical social, economic, racial, gender, and political issues of the West. Fastidiously researched. A spectacular introduction to New Western History for the aspiring or seasoned historian.

Recently, movements such as the Sagebrush Rebellion in Nevada have sprung up in the West pitting ranchers, mining companies, and developers against federal government agencies in charge of managing the land. It's been a long held myth that the government agencies, especially the Forest Service and BLM, have enacted rules to hasten the end of these economic interests in the Western US. This is one of the first books to accurately dispel many western myths such as the lone individual expressing a lifestyle of freedom, land and neighbors be damned! Read this book and learn before automatically siding with groups whose sole motivation is greed at any cost to our precious land, land that will take centuries to recouperate if left alone. These "interests" hide their motives behind "noble" state rights issues, insisting that American taxpayers turn over to state politicians (who receive the bulk of their campaign funds from these special interests) what's left of western wilderness so cattle can graze, ranchers can grow surplus crops such as alfalfa, foreign mining companies can rape the land and pay a pittance to the US Treasury, and developers can hasten the destruction of what's left of our western lands. We need more books like this one to combat the misinformation these special interests spread. Remember that in the end all american taxpayers pony up the money for these groups either through ridiculously low grazing and mining fees to subsidized water systems. This is big business, not mom and pop operations nor is it the Marboro man riding into the sunset. And after reading this book, read Cadillac Desert (Marc Reisner) to better understand how these special interest groups are threatening our beloved west.

The history of the western united states is full of myths. Rather than bring clarity to the history of the region, Richard White simply provides a new alternative mythology that suits his politics and his modern political ambitions. He creates a sort of multicutural folklore in the book suited to certain modern political sensibiilities. But in the end, its no more a valid history of a time or a place than the empire-building yarns that many people were raised on. Rather than a correction of history, its simply a new version of the old mythology.

And like all good mythology, the book discards most of the pretense of scholarship. White just says things and they are to be taken as fact. For example, he talks of indian "forest management" methods on pp. 3-4. He says that the state of the forests of the west did not reflect any sort of natural process even in terms of species. That the state of the forests of the west reflected long-term management by indian methods of burning. And he makes these breathtaking claims without pointing to any source or offering a citation.

For all the talk in the book of being more inclusive of broader history, White devotes around 50 pages to the entire history of the pre-1800s American West. He spends more pages on the post-1930s west than he does on the centuries preceeding the American arrival. He talks big about geography. He talks big about how to define the west. But when it comes down to it, he falls back into its traditional definitions. In doing so, he falls into the trap of creating "negative history". Rather than creating a new account or new perspective on the west, he produces an inverted view of the traditional narrative.

Then there are the strange bits. He describes Mormon Utah as a pre-Marxist marxist utopia. There is his account of the mountain meadows massacre. He accuses the victims of "depredations" against mormon fields, "abuse" of indians. He says that the mormon actions are explained by "religious revival" and a "state of siege". He removes all responsibility from the mormons by saying that they were just cooperating with an attack that was already planned by indians. And he tells us that all the decisions were made locally in Ceder City. He tells us that 120 adults were massacred but assures us that the children were spared and adopted by good families.

More generally, he describes US federal authorities in Utah as "fugitive officials". He invents evil motives for President Buchanan and states rights conspiracies to explain 1850s disputes in Utah. More generally, his treatment of these events shows one of the glaring flaws of his work. As part of inverting traditional history, he has to take the side of whoever the united states was "against". And in the course of his inversion, he doesn't move toward the truth. But rather blindly adopts the narrative of the other side in the conflict.

There are also amazing asides in the book that seem to have little to do with its subject. He tells us on p.590 that the Black Panther party in California lacked any roots in the community and was "a political gang". He also tells us that the "black vote" won Texas for John Kennedy in 1960 (again - no proof).

Another example of his inverted history is his treatment of the Texas-Mexico war. The texans are incomptent bumblers who can do nothing right. President Santa Anna bravely leads his army in response to the revolt and pays "a terrible cost" in terms of his losses. When he executes prisoners, its because he rightly sees them as "pirates". Davy Crockett on the other hand is a failed politician trying to revive a "moribund" career. Santa Anna has the war won. But because he didn't take the texans seriously enough based on his experience having beaten them and based on him splitting his army up and based on any other excuse White can come up with to rehabilitate him, Sana Anna sort-of lost a battle. The brave mexican army was "slaughtered". Texans are pirates who are executed while Brave mexican soldiers are slaughtered. And any document granting independence was invalid. When a war is lost, the country that has lost the war cannot possibly be said to be making a free decision and so how could any agreement for independence be valid? His entire description of the career of Santa Anna is to tell us he abandoned "liberalism" and became a "conservative" dictator. Coverage of the internal politics of Mexico in the runup to the situation in Texas is important to understand the history of what happened later. One would think in a book this long that there might be room for it. But White wasn't up to it or wasn't interested.

In general, towards the end of the book the author offers third-rate opinions on all sorts of political matters. He finds the election of Ronald Reagan in 1966 in California incomprehensible. The only reason the great Pat Brown could have lost an election was an appeal to racism on the part of Reagan. White, the historian, doesn't mention that Brown went back on a pledge not to seek a third term. White doesn't mention that Brown had to fight a primary battle within the democratic party itself. Nor does White mention the poor nature of Brown's campaign which was based on attacking Reagan for being an actor. White's account of the election itself is based on narrow political bias, stereotypes and what seems like willful ignorance.

Toward the end, White abandons any pretence of history and simply begins to attack the political right in the west. And the point the book seems to be reaching for toward the end is that the so-called mythology of the west is simply an invention that plays into the hands of the political right (more specifically Ronald Reagan). And while he spends page after page attacking the right in California (which he makes equal politically to the west), he has almost nothing to say about the left. And when he does say something, its beyond strange. To White, the "new left" only existed in California in Berkeley and it ceased to exist after the Vietnam War. Its remarkable that he could miss the gradual leftward shift of california. Its a book written in 1991 that mentions Jerry Brown on two pages with regard to the legacy of Pat Brown's water projects.

The reinterpretation of the history of the American West is a useful topic. But White and the movement he represents are not interested in reinterpretation so much as simply an inversion of traditional narratives of the American West to create historical material to backstop political dogma. Ultimately White has mearly created a politically correct narrative which is derivative of the older narrative. He and the book ultimately add nothing to the story of the west.

Richard White, author of It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own, was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1947. He received his B.A. at the University of California - Santa Cruz in 1969 which was followed by the completion of his M.A. (1972) and Ph.D. (1975) at the University of Washington. He has had a long and illustrious career starting with an immediate professorship and a fellow in history (1975-76) at the Center for the History of the American Indian, Newbery Library. From 1976-80 he was an assistant professor of history at Michigan State University and, from 1990-1998, a professor of history at the University of Washington. From 1999 to the present he is a professor of history at Stanford University. With memberships in the Organization of American Historians and the American Society of Ethnohistory he is the recipient of various awards including: the Albert B. Corey Prize, Rawley Prize and the Francis Parkman Prize. He was also nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. Some of his other works include:

Land Use, Environment, and Social Change: The Shaping of Island County, Washington, University of Washington Press (Seattle, WA), 1980.
The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, Cambridge University Press (New York, NY), 1991.
The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River, Hill & Wang (New York, NY), 1995.
The Roots of Dependency: Subsistence, Environment, and Social Change among the Choctaws, Pawnees, and Navajos, University of Nebraska Press (Lincoln, NE), 1983.
Remembering Ahanagran; Storytelling in a Family's Past, Hill and Wang (New York, NY), 1998.
Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America, W. W. Norton (New York, NY), 2011.

The book is clearly written so that the novice can understand what the author is attempting to convey throughout the text; that being, the western peoples desired a certain autonomy from the federal government while readily accepting aid and favors from it. The more the government was required to help, the more the dependency upon the federal government by the inhabitants of the region. The practice began with the American Indian, and to illustrate the straightforward style of White the following is offered from the text:

"The Treaty of Medicine Lodge brought great changes, but they were gradual ones. The Comanches and allied Kiowas now had regular annuities to supplement a subsistence system rendered more precarious than before by the decline of the buffalo. During General Sheridan's campaign against the Cheyennes in 1869, the Comanches and their allies remained on the reservations to escape attacks by soldiers who regarded any Indians found roaming the plains as hostile. Even on the reservation, however, the Comanches still continued to pursue a modified version of their annual cycle on the plains. They hunted buffalo, and they raided Texas. As one chief informed the agent, if the Americans did not want the young Comanche men to raid in Texas, then they should move Texas far away where they could not find it."1

White makes a statement and follows with an explanation and supporting evidence, in most cases, to shore up his argument, although documentation of his sources is woefully absent. In other cases, where he seems to portray a bias to his subject, he will make an absurd statement without any supporting documentation as if it were truth. For example, when discussing the Mountain Meadows massacre he hints at Brigham Young's complicity in the mass murders with no evidence to support his accusation.2 The truth of the matter was that Brigham Young sent a letter to the area bishop on September 10, 1857 by special courier with the instructions: "In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them."3 Unfortunately, the letter did not arrive in time to dissuade the plans of Bishop Haight and John D. Lee. In his discussion leading up to the massacre White propels and gives credence to the myth of the Danites by calling them "a band of murderers who supposedly acted under the command of Brigham Young" carrying out the "blood atonement".4 The Danites were nothing more than body guards for Joseph Smith that had been, for the most part, disbanded by the times the Mormons arrived in Utah.5

I am not the only one who had some problems with White's Western History. Kerwin Klein wrote, "White's work is insightful, but his construction is anachronistic and potentially misleading."6 However, all the reviews of the work are not negative. Stephen Aron writes, "White has provided the most sweeping interpretation of the casualties of American expansion. Illuminating the extensive role of the federal government in molding the western United States, he has defrocked the cult of individualism."7

For the most part the book is an enjoyable and captivating read. I realize, that with such an extensive topic, to do justice to each and every aspect of history would be quite impossible. White does a good job, in most cases, of separating fact from myth. Despite the books shortcomings I would highly recommend White's book to all who would like a primer on the history of the American West.

Sources:

1.Richard White, "It's Your Misfortune and None of my Own":A New History of the American West (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1991) 99.
2.Ibid., 168.
3.Ronald Walker, Richard Turley Jr., and Glen Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008), 184-85.
4.White, It's Your Misfortune, 168.
5.For a complete treatise on the Danites see: Richard Dewey, Porter Rockwell: A Biography (New York: Paramount Books, 1986).
6.Kerwin Lee Klein. "Reclaiming the "F" Word, or Being and Becoming Postwestern." Pacific Historical Review 65, no. 2 (May 1996): 185
7.Stephen Aron. "Lessons in Conquest: Towards a Greater Western History." Pacific Historical Review 63, no. 2 (May 1994): 126.