Gary C. Anderson is an expert on Dakota/Sioux history. His doctoral dissertation, published under the title "Kinsmen of Another Kind," discussed Dakota/White relations from the 17th to the 19th century. In "Through Dakota Eyes," Anderson collected dozens of Indian narratives concerning the 1862 Dakota uprising in Southeastern Minnesota. This book, "Little Crow: Spokesman for the Sioux," finds Anderson delving deep into the archives in order to present a better picture of that enigmatic Dakota chief Taoyateduta, known to history as Little Crow.

The main thesis of Anderson's "Kinsmen of Another Kind" was the importance of kinship ties within the Dakota tribes as well as with outsiders. Traders formed kinship ties with the Dakota because the ties allowed the traders to use the Dakotas to gather furs for them. Dakotas benefited from kinship ties because the ties involved gift giving. Whites had to give gifts to the Dakotas if they wanted to maintain trade and relations. As more and more whites moved into the region, kinship ties slowly disintegrated because whites no longer needed to deal with the Dakotas on an equal basis. It is important to understand these kinship ties when reading "Little Crow," as Anderson again makes these relationships central to his study.

Anderson begins his biographical analysis of Little Crow with an overview of Dakota culture. According to Anderson, it is impossible to understand anything about Little Crow's life and actions unless we understand his cultural underpinnings. Anderson discusses hunting, gift giving, medicine sacks and medicine societies, Dakota religion, and the role of a chief in Dakota society (chiefs, according to Anderson, held little actual power over the warriors; it was the position of speaker that held greater power, something Little Crow found out when he led the Dakota warriors during the 1862 uprising).

Little Crow's life is truly fascinating. Anderson discusses in great depth the role of Little Crow's grandfather and father in their relations with the Americans at Fort Snelling. Little Crow's grandfather and father took an accommodationist stance towards white encroachment on Dakota lands, trying to toe the fine line between keeping the Dakota people happy while dealing with the whites. Anderson argues that Little Crow, despite the bad reputation he earned due to the uprising, was an accommodationist just like his father and grandfather. Time and time again, Little Crow worked with the white Indian agents and soldiers to try and benefit his people. Little Crow was intimately involved in signing several treaties with the government, worked hard to placate the government after the Inkpaduta affair of 1857, and tried to prevent war in 1862. That Little Crow failed in his dealings with the government and failed to stop the uprising is certainly a tragedy, but should not overshadow his attempts to do the right thing for his people. Ultimately, no Dakota leader could have prevented the coming doom.

Little Crow is best known for the destructive war against whites in 1862. Anderson covers the war and its aftermath in succinct detail. Actually, this may be the best account of the war I have read. Anderson discusses Little Crow's failure to successfully organize his warriors, his failure to gain support with mixed-blood and Upper Agency Indians, and his failure to form an Indian alliance during his exile in North Dakota and Canada. When Little Crow returned to Minnesota in 1863, he knew his time was short. Little Crow died from a gunshot wound while picking berries with his son. Little Crow's remains, horribly mutilated by angry whites, ended up on display at the Minnesota Historical Society until the 1970's, when they were finally given a proper burial.

Anderson claims that Little Crow was an opportunist, a scheming sort of politician who always helped out because he wanted to elevate his own position within Dakota society. Anderson cites as evidence newspaper interviews with Little Crow which revealed Little Crow's propensity for pithy statements and his need for constant attention. That Little Crow had a knack for oratory should come as no surprise; he was a chief, and chiefs constantly debated issues with other leaders in the tribe. But is Little Crow a politician? I don't think so, at least not in the way we perceive the term. Is it possible that newspaper and other white accounts of the time framed Little Crow in terms whites understood? After all, documents show that many whites had no real conception about the true nature of Indians in the 19th century. White relations with Indians were based on a fundamental set of assumptions, most of them racist and false. To paint Little Crow as a sort of Huey Long type teeters dangerously close to error. After all, Dakota culture emphasized communitarian values, not the sort of individualistic elevation Anderson says Little Crow sought.

Anderson ends the book with an appendix discussing Little Crow's genealogy. This section is the most difficult part of the book due to the intricate relationships within Indian families and tribes. Terms like "father" and "cousin" do not carry the same connotation in Indian culture as they do in ours. A father's brothers can all be "fathers" to an Indian, and "cousins" are even more convoluted. A genealogical chart of Little Crow's family at the back of the book makes a medieval royal house look like a nuclear family. These genealogies are necessary to back up Anderson's claim that kinship is central to tribal life.

This is a scholarly book that manages to entertain while it teaches. It is definitely a must have for those seeking a deeper understanding of the Dakota tribes, or for those interested in the Minnesota uprising of 1862. If you don't come away with some sense of admiration for Little Crow, despite his failures, you did not read the same book I did.

Little Crow, Spokesman For the Sioux is a reissuing of a well-researched biography of the famous Mdewakanton chief from Kaposia (Minnesota), presented complete with period drawings, illustrations, and maps as well as an exhaustive genealogy of Little Crow (Appendix 2) which helps to explain his complicated series of alliances and growth to power. Little Crow, or Ta-o-ya-te-du-ta is presented as a reluctant war leader and a persistent accommodater, politician and tribal spokesman, a position earned partly by blood and good alliances and partly by sacrifice and risk. The Mdewakanton's experience of betrayal, disillusionment, cultural displacement and dissolution in the war of 1862 is central to the life experience of Little Crow. His death is presented as a metaphor for his life and that of his people. In "The Last Campaign" it is asked why Little crow returned to the Minnesota Frontier in September of 1862, where it was almost certain that he would be killed. Though he spoke of obtaining a horse for each of his children, it seems more plausible that he willingly headed towards his death as a deliberate sacrifice, being blamed for the war by both whites and Mdewakanton Sioux.

This is the tragedy of Little Crow's life.

Faithful to the conclusions suggested by his richly varied sources, Anderson presents a realistic yet compassionate portrayal of a great Mdewakanton chief. This is a scholarly work that reads smoothly and gives good tapestry detail. Colored plates of paintings enrich the text.

Nancy Lorraine, Reviewer

I live in the city of Hutchinson, MN in McLeod County. Six miles north of this city is a marker identifying the site where Little Crow was shot by a local farmer. The farmer had no idea who he was shooting at, just that it was an Indian and he would collect a bounty for his scalp.

Our city has a bronze statue of Little Crow looking out over the Crow River near the dam on the Main Street. Up until the time that I read this book, that summed up most of what I knew of Little Crow, the Sioux legend. We choose to drop the name Sioux that was given this people by our own ancestors, the Ojibwe. In our language it means "Snake". Their word for themselves is Dakota. It means "Friend".

Now I feel as though I know him as a man. I know of his character, his integrity, his family, his people. I know a great wrong was done.

At the present time there is a group of people involved in planning and hosting a reconciliation and restitution concerning the events that touched this city in regards to Taoyateduta (Little Crow) and his people. A direct descendant of Taoyateduta (meaning His Red Nation) and a direct descendant of the man who shot him will be part of the event, asking forgiveness of one another. It is never too late to say, "I'm sorry. Will you forgive?"

This book has been instrumental in opening the door to the healing of this ancient wound that is still alive in many hearts.

For many years, I, like so many others, have labored under the assumption that the Native American 'story' was somewhat like the depictions we had all seen and read.

The voice of the current Native Americans speak to the atrocities perpetrated upon them by the insensitive advancement of land hungry europeans.

This book, written by Samuel Pond, simply describes how the Lakota Sioux actually 'were' in Minnesota in 1834.

Samuel and his brother Gideon Pond were missionaries to the Sioux and, among other exceptional work, compiled a comprehensive lexicon of the Sioux language, subsequently translating the Bible into Sioux.

For those of you who would like to gain an unbiased view of the true Native American, this book is a 'must'.

It is also possible that after learning about Samuel and Gideon Pond, you will develop a deep appreciation of the dedication and hardships suffered by, and the good intentions and pioneering spirit of the missionaries who wanted to enrich the souls of Native Americans.

Samuel and Gideon Pond were truely 'unsung heros' of our American heritage. Their efforts have been annotated in this book, however, and so their exploits still live in the minds of the reader.

Even if you choose not to purchase this book, it would be well worth your time to 'surf' their names in the internet. You will be rather surprised at the results.

I have been reading books of late about the Texas Rangers. They are varied. This one is remarkable. Half the book is about his adventures as a Ranger. The second half is about being captured and living with the Comanches. It is an amazing story. Not great literature and bit dated in its prose, but I thought a wonderful read.

This book has some wonderful narratives from the very people who were caught up in the middle of the uprising in Minnesota in 1862. The author does a good job of explaining how the book is laid out. You definitely need to read the intro to understand this. While I was reading the book, I felt as though I was there in the middle of it with all those involved. I don't excuse what was done, but I have a better understanding of what horrors the indians went through that drove them to this place. I would definitely recommend this book.

Historians discovered many years ago that oral history is a vibrant cornucopia of information. Even better, integrating oral history into traditional modes of inquiry opened up more chances for earning a Ph.D., or getting that career making book contract. In the case of "Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Indian War of 1862," oral history is the only game in town. Every selection in the book is an oral story from Indians or mixed-blood Indians about the disastrous uprising that killed hundreds of soldiers, settlers, and Indians. One of the editors of "Through Dakota Eyes" is none other than Gary Clayton Anderson, the premier scholar on Dakota history. As usual, Anderson goes above and beyond the call of duty in researching the narratives, providing background color on the people involved (and also providing information about what happened to these people after the uprising, something I greatly appreciated).

For nearly a century after the uprising, articles and books concerning the 1862 war only used white narratives as sources of information. There is definitely nothing wrong with relying on these narratives; they are invaluable sources of information on the uprising. The white narratives also reveal the tragic dimensions of the conflict, showing how innocent men, women, and children died (or persevered) in especially brutal ways. With the addition of these Indian narratives, however, historians can now go inside the camps and meeting places of the Dakotas intimately involved in the conflict.

The narratives are lumped into distinct categories dealing with different stages of the uprising. Each category then provides a succinct description of that particular phase of the war. With each narrative, the editors provide a small capsule of information on the person telling the story, allowing the reader to understand that person's place in the overall scheme of things. It is recommended to read the endnotes for each narrative, as they provide excellent information on each narrative. Excellent maps and pictures of many of the people involved also help the reader to understand the accounts.

Some of the narratives are more helpful than others. A few are difficult to understand due to poor grammar or contradictory information. Several of the narratives appeared in newspaper articles or as testimony in a case against the government in 1901, and there is a possibility that someone altered or changed them as they saw fit. That does not mean there are not any "WOW!" moments found here. In Cecelia Campbell Stay's account of the attack on the Redwood Agency (also known as the Lower Agency, where the killing began in earnest on August 18th), Cecelia describes seeing the sunlight flashing on the bayonets of Captain Marsh's patrol as they headed to their doom at the ferry crossing. Another narrative, now widely used in accounts of the uprising, comes from Wowinape, the son of Little Crow (the leader of the warring Dakota). Battle narratives allow the reader to feel as though they are at Fort Ridgely, New Ulm, or Birch Coulee as the cannons roar and the bullets fly.

As the editors point out, many of the mixed-blood Indian narratives identify a central tension of the conflict, namely the division between Indians who adopted white modes of civilization (the farmer Indians) and those who stayed true to traditional Indian values (the blanket Indians). Many of the mixed-blood Indians worked closely with whites; they feared the war parties of the traditionals just as much as whites did. As the war began to wind down, it was the mixed-bloods along with some full-blooded Indians who confronted the warring Indians, forcing these hostile forces to turn over their white captives in an effort to make peace with the military forces sweeping into the area.

This is an absolutely essential book for anyone interested in the Minnesota 1862 uprising. Actually, anyone writing a paper on this conflict without using this book as a source could find themselves in hot water. Since the editors graciously organized the narratives in chronological order, there is no reason someone unfamiliar with the conflict and its principal figures would have any difficulty understanding the book. Gary Anderson and Alan Woolworth have made an important contribution to Indian scholarship with this impressive tome.

Gary C. Anderson is considered an expert on Dakota/Sioux history, largely due to this book, "Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi Valley, 1650-1862." It is a reprint, I believe, of his doctoral dissertation, and includes a new introduction of the original 1984 printing ... For a neophyte such as myself, the book is a bit too detailed for an introduction to Dakota history, but Anderson does help the beginner by vigorously emphasizing general themes throughout the book.

Anderson's central theme in his book is one of kinship ties. In Dakota culture, Anderson argues, one could be "adopted" into a tribe, band, or Dakota family by going through either a ceremony or marrying a Dakota. Once this was done, that person (and there is no distinction among Indians or Whites in this matter) is considered a part of the tribe. White traders as early as the French in the 17th century used these ties to great effect because it allowed the traders to employ Dakota hunters as fur gatherers. But the ties also required the traders who used them to treat their new Dakota kin as family, something some traders failed to do on a regular basis. Some of these traders let the relationships lapse, or did not give gifts to their Dakota kin (an essential aspect of the give and take of the relationship). Throughout the book, Anderson sledgehammers this concept again and again, showing how kinship bonds so heavily relied upon in the earliest days of Dakota-White contact faded into obscurity as time went by and Whites gained the upper hand in the region in terms of military, political, and economic strength. By the time of the Dakota uprising of 1862, kinship ties were nearly nonexistent.

An effective way to read this book, and one that my professor is trying to drill into our heads, is to try and examine Anderson's findings from an Indian perspective. When this is done, numerous problems with the book emerge.

First, Anderson relies heavily on European sources for his information. While his list of these sources in the back of the book is truly impressive (he examines everything from diaries, travelogues, journals, letters, government documents, books, and treaties), his use of native oral tradition is scarce. Dakota oral stories do exist concerning contact with Europeans, but after reading this book, you would never know it. This may stem from the time in which Anderson wrote the book, as there is now a greater awareness of the need to utilize these sources in order to achieve a finer balance and larger historical picture.

Second, for an Indian scholar, Anderson at times shows a slight insensitivity to the Dakota. It is easy to get carried away with this point and indulge in the type of reckless statements made by the politically correct crowd, but a few statements Anderson makes could be considered crass. For instance, he calls Andrew Jackson's removal program, a program that forced Indians throughout the United States off of their land (often at gunpoint), "humane." During his exposition of the Dakota uprising in 1862, Anderson incessantly refers to Dakotas as either "friendlies" or "hostiles." Now this may be true from the standpoint of the settlers in the region dodging Indian bullets, but it probably had different connotations for those Dakotas who participated in the revolt.

Despite the few biased comments, Anderson doesn't disregard the shameful aspects of the treaty process between Dakotas and the United States government. Time and time again, treaties signed with the Dakotas promised much and delivered little. It was the traders who committed the most egregious sins; they used their position as suppliers for the Dakota to falsify debt records, presenting bills to the federal government for outlandish amounts of money "owed" to them by the Dakotas. When the treaty money finally came through, the traders skimmed this amount right off the top, often getting the amounts written directly into the treaty agreements. As if that isn't bad enough, some of the treaty commissioners indulged in a little corruption themselves, taking tens of thousands of dollars as "fees" for transporting the payments from Washington to the Dakota tribes in Minnesota. At least when this happened, it still meant the Dakotas got some of the money. Oftentimes, either the money didn't come through at all, or would be delivered months late, leading to starvation for the tribes who needed the funds for essential supplies. Eventually, the government realized they could purposefully withhold the money in order to force the Dakota to do things the government wanted done. This withholding of funds is what led to the destructive uprising in 1862, leading to the deaths of hundreds of Dakotas and Whites.

It would have been extremely helpful if Anderson included some decent maps in this book. We get two, one puny map of the upper Mississippi area and one of the Dakota reservations along the Minnesota River. Neither does effective service to the huge amount of place names Anderson drops during the course of his work. They also fail to help the reader place the various tribes within the Dakota Nation. This is important because Anderson often refers to the Mdewankantons, Sissetons, Wahpekutes, etc. These are the separate Dakota tribes, and they move about frequently, so frequently that locating them on the maps provided defies even the hardiest efforts.

For a detailed, scholarly history of the Eastern Dakota tribes, this book, despite its many flaws, does the trick. The research, for the sources it does utilize, is well done. Gary Anderson is to be commended for a fascinating look at a way of life long gone from the American scene.