Ed Marston’s review of Alvin Josephy’s
new book Lewis and Clark Through Indian Eyes
refers to Bernard DeVoto’s Course of
Empire as a “traditional” perspective
characterizing the expedition as “one long and heroic act,
one close call, one brilliant decision after another.”
Having just re-read all three of DeVoto’s Western histories,
I must take exception to that assertion. As far as I can determine,
Devoto calls it like it is regarding both white and red history. He
obviously loves the West and all aspects of its social history, so
any “romanticism” evident in DeVoto’s
“traditional history” is nothing more than a kind of
loving reverence for ways of life that no longer exist.
Marston quotes Vine DeLoria Jr. describing the expedition as
“a tedious march from one place to another (with the route)
made known to them by Indians and French traders. …” While
this is certainly true, the way wasn’t always spelled out for
them. Some locals may have preferred that the whites just get lost
and die. You can’t tell me that battling grizzly bears on the
plains, seeing new places or negotiating with hostile Arikaras was
tedious. Dragging boats up the Missouri or figuring out how to
alleviate mass flatulence from a root diet, on the other hand, may
very well have been tedious. But Lewis and Clark’s
perseverance, regardless of what people already inhabiting the area
might think, was relatively heroic.
So regarding the
perspectives, why must it always be one or the other? Is there no
middle ground for heroism in tedium? Or tedium in heroism, for that
matter? I suggest that we stop romanticizing the Native American
viewpoint as somehow more legitimate than that of the European
invaders. Everybody has a story to tell and everybody’s story
tells something of value.
Evan Cantor
Boulder, Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Even Sacajawea had to wash her socks sometimes.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
