Random thoughts related to my book

The "Indian Wars" have often been framed as "Indian uprisings", "Indian outbreaks" and other phrasings that portray the Native Americans as the aggressors. In the Fetterman Massacre the hapless Cavalrymen were killed by the ruthless, brutal savages whereas at the Battle of Sand Creek pitted heroic militiamen against valiant noble savages. At least, so the historical narrative often seen in schools might have you believe.
Of course, even the most cursory investigation reveals the truth is vastly different. Fetterman was an egomaniac who is quoted as saying "Give me 80 men and I will ride through the whole Sioux nation." He ignored orders preventing him from pursuing or engaging the Sioux and led his men into an ambush where all 80 men were killed in battle. They gave a good account of themselves during the fight but they were soldiers who went into the engagement with their eyes open as to the danger. It was a battle that ended in annihilation to be sure...but it WAS a battle.
Contrast this with Sand Creek. Black Kettle was living under the protection of the U.S. government. When Chivington and his men attacked Black Kettle is reputed to have wrapped himself in an American flag and told his camp members not to fight back, that the Great White Chief would protect them. Most of the camp was unarmed and the "battle" was fought by individual men trying to buy their families time to flee. The victims included women and children with estimates of the number killed ranging as high as 500. This was not an engagement between professional soldiers and warriors drawn up for battle...it was a shooting gallery where superior numbers, superior weaponry, and the fact they were attacking a peaceful encampment led to the mowing down of hundreds of innocents.
Yet the battle between soldiers (can I call the Sioux warriors soldiers? It seems apt.) is called a "Massacre" and the massacre is called a battle. I guess it all comes down to who won, doesn't it? But then again, a lot of history is like that. Perception and reality seldom intersect.
Take Geronimo, for example...which image do you associate with Geronimo? A skilled fighter leading men on daring raids deep in the heart of Mexico and terrorizing white and Mexicans in the Arizona desert? An entertainer? A Sunday School teacher? Riding one of the first Cadillacs made? As a philanthropist?
Of course the first image strikes a chord. It is how he made his name. And it is relatively accurate. By all accounts, both his own and those of his enemies he was a fearsome fighter.
Yet the second picture is true as well. Geronimo toured with Buffalo Bill's Wild West show. He sometimes performed feats of skill on horseback or with bow and arrows, including making a large amount selling his photo with bow and arrow in hand, and often demonstrated his skill with a rifle. In fact, that very skill led to the end of his career as a Sunday School teacher, if memory serves correctly for the Dutch Reformed Church. You see, he could not resist betting on shooting matches...and since he was betting on his own skill he almost always won. His taste for gambling led to his dismissal...but who would believe Geronimo as a Sunday School teacher?
Perhaps best of all was his role as philanthropist. Geronimo was a star attraction for Buffalo Bill. He made a lot of money while touring yet was always broke. Why? Because he would see people in the city who needed food or clothing...and he would give them his money. Yes, Geronimo was a philanthropist.
Yet the only picture we have is a man in war paint spurring his pony across the desert to attack the whites or Mexicans. Can you imagine being one of the kids he taught in Sunday School?