Kirkus Review of "BH-Battle..Heart of America"

[Robert Braun]

As I indicated in the thread on Dr. Trask's new book, Black Hawk: Battle for the Heart of America, one of the cited reviews was from Kirkis Reviews. This firm has been around since the 1930's and has a reputation as a hard-hitter when it comes to reviewing new books and publications.

Here is the quote from the book publisher's page:

[An] illuminating study of that least-known of America's Indian wars, which made Illinois safe for corn and industry. As historians such as Jill Lepore and Charles Mann are ever more plainly demonstrating, white/Indian conflict was more complex than the old grand narrative has it. Trask adds materially to this new history with this engrossing study of the Black Hawk War of 1832, when Sauk Indians driven west by white expansion into Illinois and Iowa abruptly turned back and fought a desperate guerrilla war that briefly looked as if it might succeed. As Trask shows, the war had several proximate causes: The Sauk found themselves pressed up against the Menominee and Sioux, who pushed them back toward the pale of white settlements. The Army had been demobilized, so that the frontier was staffed by a handful of men who were satisfied with 'bad food, slavish labor, harsh discipline, social isolation, and the general absence of respect granted to soldiers by the society as a whole.' The Sauk considered the militia to be just as worthless. And under the leadership of elders such as Black Hawk, the Sauk stayed off liquor and were culturally conservative, which bound them together come time to fight. Fight they did, destroying farms, mines and other settlements along the Mississippi until poor weather, illness and superior enemy arms broke them. At turns, Trask reveals characters who will turn up at other points in American history: Jefferson Davis, Philip St. George Cooke, Alexander Hamilton's son William and Black Hawk himself, his name now preserved in that of a hockey team. He also links his unhappy narrative of war to a curious 'national identity crisis' that pitted sympathetic northeastern types against frontier people who would just as soon kill Indians as look at them—an early hint of the red state/blue state division. Lucid and accessible, even as the author tracks a multifaceted, ultimately tragic tale.

I will analyze and comment on this review in this thread...

Bob.

[Robert Braun]

Let's see... where to begin...

[An] illuminating study of that least-known of America's Indian wars, which made Illinois safe for corn and industry. Hmmm... complimentary and overtly gratutious all in one sentence. Does this imply that were it not for the BHW, Illinois would NOT have been safe for corn and industry?

As historians such as Jill Lepore and Charles Mann are ever more plainly demonstrating, white/Indian conflict was more complex than the old grand narrative has it. Whose "grand old narrative?" We are left only to guess...

Trask adds materially to this new history with this engrossing study of the Black Hawk War of 1832, when Sauk Indians driven west by white expansion into Illinois and Iowa abruptly turned back and fought a desperate guerrilla war that briefly looked as if it might succeed. Succeed? Really?? WHEN??

As Trask shows, the war had several proximate causes: The Sauk found themselves pressed up against the Menominee and Sioux, who pushed them back toward the pale of white settlements. Yes.. I know that "pale" means a "space with boundaries," but isn't this a wierd combination or words? I notice that native housing is NEVER described as "red settlements." The movement of the Sauk on arguably Sioux and Winnebago land (the Sauk just didn't spring from the ground in the Rock River Country) is never described or even considered as "encroachment."

The Army had been demobilized, Yes... after the War of 1812 ended in 1814-- a GENERATION prior to the conflict! What does that have to do with anything?

so that the frontier was staffed by a handful of men who were satisfied with 'bad food, slavish labor, harsh discipline, social isolation, and the general absence of respect granted to soldiers by the society as a whole.' Can't help you there. Congress in the 1830s simply did not wish to fund a large standing army

Sauk considered the militia to be just as worthless. Really? WHICH Sauk said that? Or are we back to gratuitous cheap shots?

BlackHawk, the Sauk stayed off liquor and were culturally conservative, which bound them together come time to fight. [/Actually, the book says BLACK HAWK himself abstained from liquor and was conservative.

Fight they did, destroying farms, Black HAwk's warriors certainly "looted" farms-- that fact is well-documented. I can't think of a single farm they destroyed.

mines Name one.

and other settlements Name one.

along the Mississippi until poor weather,Poor weather? What... it snowed?

illness and superior enemy arms broke them. Interesting that malnutrition, discouragement, and wounds were not part of this list.

At turns, Trask reveals characters who will turn up at other points in American history: Jefferson Davis, Oh good Lord! Not again!!

Philip St. George Cooke,Oh yes. VERY significant.

Alexander Hamilton's son William Again... interesting, but not very significant considering others clearly absent from this list!

and Black Hawk himself, his name now preserved in that of a hockey team. And on pratically every road sign, tavern, school, and the like in Illinois and Wisconsin.

He also links his unhappy narrative of war to a curious 'national identity crisis' that pitted sympathetic northeastern types against frontier people who would just as soon kill Indians as look at them—an early hint of the red state/blue state division. Oh yes... 1830s Easterners and Westerners compared to 2005 Democrats and Republicans! This is as valid a comparison as saying the candle "was an early hint" of the cathode ray tube!

Lucid and accessible, even as the author tracks a multifaceted, ultimately tragic tale. Yes! True! At last!

In short... this review-- even with its sparse kernals of truth-- is far more biased, ill-informed, and gratuitious than Dr. Trask's work (that which I have read to date.)

My advice-- buy the book; ignore the review.

Bob.

[Robert Braun]

I keep trying to wade through Dr. Trask's opus... and it's getting harder and harder with every read. There's much I like about the book.

I am, however, growing more and more miffed at Dr. Trask's characterization of Indian veres American traditions. He spreaks rightly in respectful terms for native spirituality, custom and divination. His observations regarding so-called "mythology" is both respectful and presented as a mattter of course with native people.

Not so with the Americans.

In Dr. Trask's world, everything about western expansion by settlers is due to "this" myth or "that" myth. He claims there is a big cultural crisis in America-- one of definition of self as a nation, but never backs up or expands on this assertion. He talks about the "myth" of the independent settler, hoping to make as good an impression in the West as did real-life hunter-pioneers like Daniel Boone, or literary ones like Natty Bumpo. He adds to this the myth of the "citizen soldier"-- born of Lexington and Concord, Breed's Hill and the Plains of Chalmette. He then pours gasoline on the fire by his claims that the myth of "captive narratives" like "Last of the Mohicans" played directly into the fears and sexual identities of American males-- meaning that the captive narratives allude to the capture and ravagement of American women, which correspondingly fuels the desire in the male for rescue and revenge.

I have some trouble with his purpetual use of the word "myth" when associated with Americans. The clear insinuation for the word "myth" is not mere "storytelling," but an actual living state of affairs that fueled one's ambitions and even found expression in actions. The negative connotation is abundantly clear-- a connotation (not surprisingly) missing from the assiciation of "myth" with native people.

My point is: Dr. Trask seems to be saying that the western man's view of self and what constituted manhood in the west was based on "mythology."

I strongly disagree. It's only mythology if the underlying basis has little or no grounding in fact. For example, no one truly beleives that a Cyclops or Hydra actually existed in Antiquity. As such,, they have been relegated to Greek Mythology. But the citizen-soldier who tried and succeeded at great odds WAS and remains a TRUE story! The pioneering success (and failures) of Daniel Boone combine to make a TRUE story!

Their were indian captive narratives... because there were real Indian captive incidents! Dr. Trask failed to connect the dots for his readers when he neglected to mention James Fennimore Cooper's inspiration for "Last of the Mohicans"-- the true story of the capture and eventual rescue of Jemima Boone and Fanny & Betsy Callaway! The Black Hawk War has its own captive story: the capure of the Hall sisters after the murders at the Big Indian Creek massacre.

These were REAL men and some of the captive stories were taken from ACTUAL events. That's not mythology... nor is it mythology to wish to pattern one's self after the lives of past heroes and heroic deeds.

And I believe Dr. Trasks demeans the American past by claiming that nearly every American tradition, hero and heroic act somehow became mythologized.

Bob.

[Robert Braun]

In several ways, Dr. Trask has brought refreshing clarity to the discussions on Black Hawk and his war:

1. His descriptions of the early fumblings by the National and Illinois government;

2. His discourse on the increasing influence and importance of Col. Dodge;

3. His frank observations on Black Hawk's speech during his trip East.

This being said, Dr. Trask himslef fumbled an opportunity to really dissect the Stillman's Run fiasco. He cited four eyewitness accounts... which he correctly observed as being somewhat slanted and self-serving. Yet even with four accounts, he refused to make the kind of definative historical observations I cited earlier. Instead he claims the rusty addage "we may never know." Why is this? Is it because of a preference to weight BH's account as strongly as THREE other accounts? Heaven forbid we approach some conclusions on Stillman's Run that MIGHT be contrary to BH recollection!

[Sidebar] I love the BFTHOA review from my dear old "chums" at the Milwaukee Urinal-Sentinal. Apparently, the reason Battle for the Heart of America is a good book is because Dr.. Trask didn't use block quotes! Well now! I'm glad we know THAT!
Perhaps now Milwaukee's only newspaper can get on dealing more important things... like actually reporting the news.

Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Bob, remains steadfast in a gentleman, scholar review of Dr. Trask's book and for the most part I am in agreement with his very astute comments. Sorry to say, I take a more cynical position on the rating of this book. The more I read the more I become cynical. My emotions started in aghast and tempered to dismay.

What unfolded before my eyes was a history revisionist overview and a "Blame America - First" undercurrent with a sprinkling of feminism movement. Many book review classic statements are: "complelling reading - could not put the book down." This was not the case for me - I could put the book down - down with disgust.

Larry

[Robert Braun]

Another annoyance.. at least three seperate times, Dr. Trask departs from his subject and goes off on some kind of socio-loopy sidebar, involking quotes from neohistorians whose views and pronouncements differ wildly from the mind and the times of 1830s America.

For the neohissys, the point is to be as modernist and outragiously iconoclastic as possible. And I have little doubt that the sophomore and junior college "skulls filled with mush" lap this stuff up. What other basis for comparison IS there for them?

Besides Cecil Eby that is.

Sorry... couldn't resist. ;D

r.

[DJ Palama]

I didn't find the book to be that bad. Granted, I can agree that he digressed a lot in subjects that aren't fully accurate for the early 19 Cent. However, I might be bold in saying this, but I think that it presents the entire conflict better than any of the books that my local library has. I am glad that Dr. Trask doesn't focus on Lincoln or the flasehood of Jefferson Davis being directly involved. Yes, a lot of it was boring but I found it to a lot better than that Disgraceful Affair from the 1970s.

[Larry Koschkee]

A book's title is generally an indication of the theme or idea inside. Does this apply in this case?

In this battle for the heart of america is the reader left to choose sides with his/her feelings? To whom does one's heart or sympathies lie? Is the book all about a battle of contemporary feelings?

I have grown weary of the "its all about Black Hawk" and the down trodden Indian theme. On page 98 of Trask's book he quotes Black Hawk at a conference with Gaines.

"How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right." - This has happened throughout mankind's history... it is part of survival of the fittest. This should not really pull your heart strings. Dependent of your belief, humans have been killing each other since Cain and Abel and most likely before that.

Actually, the title of the book would have been more meaningful historicaly if it had read:

BATTLE FOR THE HEARTLAND OF AMERICA. The conflict or controversey was about land and the strongest and fittest captured it. A violent siezure of land - pure and simple.

Within this message board causes of the BHW were discussed and more specifically the point where BH could not turn back from war. What do you think of Trask's suggestion that women caused the war?

I do give Trask credit for one thing, he was successful in a matter of the heart. He illuminated the dark side of the heart....

BTW, Trask will be giving a talk about the contents of his book at: UWM School of Continuing Education, 161 W. Wisconsin Avenue, 7th Floor, Milwaukee, WI on Friday, Oct. 13th, 2006.

He is on a speaking tour with "Mr. Blame America First," Ward Churchill... ;D Just kidding!