Like every nation in the world,  John Moore argues in this exceptionally candid and respectful study,  the Cheyenne have cosmopolitan origins.  Building on the Cheyenne case, Moore convincingly challenges the persistent characterization of tribal societies as static  crystals  shattered by their collision with European states

Barsh, Russel Lawrence

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Quarterly Great Plains Studies, Center for 1988 Review of The Cheyenne Nation: A Social and Demographic History. Russel Lawrence Barsh Seattle Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly  Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Barsh, Russel Lawrence, "Review of The Cheyenne Nation: A Social and Demographic History." (1988). Great Plains Quarterly. 359. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly/359 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Quarterly by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. BOOK REVIEWS The Cheyenne Nation: A Social and Demographic History. By John H. Moore. Lincoln: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press, 1988. Figures, maps, photographs, tables, linguistic appen-dix, notes, bibliography, references, index. xxv + 390 pp. $32.50. "Like every nation in the world," John Moore argues in this exceptionally candid and respect-ful study, "the Cheyenne have cosmopolitan origins." Building on the Cheyenne case, Moore convincingly challenges the persistent charac-terization of tribal societies as static "crystals" shattered by their collision with European states. Like nation-states, "tribal nations" may con-sist of diverse ethnic and linguistic groups, ex-perience internal social and economic struggles, and respond to changing external conditions by restructuring their institutions. Tribal nations have their own constitutional histories and sense of national purpose. Where they differ from na-tion-states, Moore contends, is in their lack of a coercive, centralized state apparatus. The Cheyenne Nation demolishes the pre-sumption-that is at the same time both ro-mantic and racist-that "Indian" nations changed little until European invasion knocked them from their ancient, stable orbits. Tribal nation building preceded European encroach-ments on the continent, which introduced new constraints and opportunities. As Moore dem-onstrates, moreover, it has been the very di-versity and conflict within tribal society that has made rapid adaptation and survival possible. 233 Moore's unconventional conclusions are the direct result of an unconventional methodol-ogy, which accepts conflicting reports from in-formants rather than attempting to sift from them a single "correct" view. This recognizes that a diversity of viewpoints should be natural among the members of any dynamic society and that a study of the differences is a powerful tool for identifying and understanding social conflict and change. If Moore errs, it is in failing to accept the legitimacy of the new dialectic involving "tra-ditional" Cheyenne, with whom his sympathies clearly lie, and the tribal council system orga-nized under federal laws. However incompetent or unsavory the council party may be, it is none-theless a Cheyenne phenomenon made up of persons who consider themselves Cheyenne. Like the emergence of the Dog Soldiers in the 1840s, which Moore traces so well, the rise of the council group since the 1930s has been a new division within the nation, and a new chal-lenge to national unity, arising from different responses to new external forces. There is one interesting difference, however. When the Dog Soldiers consolidated them-selves as a revolutionary, alternative society, the Cheyenne briefly became two distinct na-tions. U.S. laws today legitimize, finance, and protect only one party or tendency in the "tribe" at a time. The option of fission does not exist. Hence modem-day tribal struggles are pressur-ized, and inescapable, to a far greater degree. Situations which would have given birth to new 234 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, FALL 1988 tribal nations a century ago now usually result in internecine violence, as at Pine Ridge in 1973 or, more recently, at Red Lake. Indeed, The Cheyenne Nation should be re-quired reading for those federal bureaucrats who have been entrusted since 1978 with determin-ing "who are Indian tribes."1 In several of these recent cases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has rejected group,jirlor the same kind of history of social fission, exchange of families with neigh-boring tribes, and varying membership that Moore describes for the Cheyenne. What Moore reveals as the underlying dynamic of tribal so-ciety, the B.l.A. regards as inconsistent with being a "tribe." Its researchers are still "crys-tallographers," which might be amusing if it did not affect the legal status and future of a great many tribal nations. NOTES 1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 25 ("In-dians"), Part 83; Russel L. Barsh, "Federal Ac-knowledgment of Indian T ribes-A Challenge for Anthropologists?" Practicing Anthropology (May 1988). RUSSEL LAWRENCE BARSH Seattle 

Review of The Cheyenne Nation: A Social and Demographic History.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1358&amp;context=greatplainsquarterly

Review of The Cheyenne Nation: A Social and Demographic History.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska