The Great Indian Wars 1840-1890

This recitation of the ongoing battle between the US Army and the various hostile Native American Tribes in the 19th Century is a decent overview of the period. It covers the campaigns of Sitting Bull, Cochece, Geronimo and many others. The real drawback of the film is it's reliance on a very limited number of period stills mixed with cheap public domain fiction film footage. The overall effect is tedious. Additionally, the film is straight narrative without any "expert" interviews or opinions to add color.

A good introduction to the period, but not one you'll watch over and over like a good documentary serial such as Ken Burns' Civil War or the World At War.

The reality is, Ken Burns and his magnificence have spoiled us when it comes to broad, sweeping documentaries on topics as wide ranging and diverse as "the Great Indian Wars". Burns is in a league of his own, and it is unfair to everyone else who attempts to do documentaries on any subject that he is so good and so well known. After all, everything pales in comparison. His western documentary is, of course, greatly superior to this collection, but the advantage this collection has is that it is focused almost exclusively on the tragic history of the native American, US Military conflicts. Sure, it is dry. It would have benefited from some music other than Indian drumming. It is a good primer though on the conflicts that comprised a 50-60 year period of American history and it wets the thirst for those who so desire to, study in more depth the subject at hand. All in all, a very good documentary set for a low price.

This series provides some good general information but it's told from a totally biased position. The Natives are continually referred to as "warlike" and warrior cultures. This helps the viewers to conclude that the violence used against the natives was justified. One exmple is the retelling of the "Sand Creek Massacre" the viewers are told that there were atrocities committed by the U. S. Army. He never gives details of the atrocities, that included Rapes, breast cut off and scrotums removed to be used as tobacco pouches. The expert in the film justifies the anger felt by the soldiers. When in fact the soldiers in question had been chided for being "bloodless". The soldiers were looking for a fight. The warriors were away leaving women, children and old people in the camp. The native accounts of the events tell of many more dead and their chief carrying a white flag to the soldiers and then being fired upon.

The event was so atrocious that the soldiers lied about the incident when they arrived in Denver. It was only after a guilt-ridden soldier sent a letter to a superior that the incident and the atrocities became known. Later the film details what were done to soldiers on one occasion, detailing disembowelment and showing a picture of the soldier obviously shown to elicit sympathy and to show the viewers that atrocious acts were committed by both sides. This is an example of how this documentatry treats the retelling of history. It continually justifies military action against women children and the eldery and repeatedly portrays the offended as hostile. It rarely mentions broken treaties, biased laws or encroachment by settlers in violation of treaties. This series minimizes the fact that the U. S. government wanted to exterminate the natives and had no intention of living in peace. They glorify Custer who graduated dead last from West Point and had a history of being reckless and brash. This film describes Custers actions at The Little Big Horn as a failed strategy instead of the over confident blunder that it was.

Even the title of this doc is misleading, because what actually took place over several decades was systematic eradication and colonization. Even the beginning of this film seems to describe the inhabitants of North America as nomads and never acknowledges the original habitants right to ownership. This is the kind of retelling of history that leads to cultural and historical ignorance and fuels the racial inequities that erode the fabric of America today.

• on the contrary; this is the most objective description of the Indian wars I have seen so far. It is wonderfully free of the usual tipi-hippie lamentations over the loss of the Indian culture that must be wiser and better simply because it fell victim to the cruel, white man. Also, it does not claim the oft-repeated 'brotherhood' of the red man 'who did not believe in owning the land' and such claptrap, quite the contrary: it blatantly dares to state the FACT that native Americans had been fighting each other for thousands of years before the white man came along and beat them at their own game. How refreshing the truth can be when it is a scarce commodity in documentaries.

The only thing I'll say against this production is that it should have been backed with more funds. It is deploringly low-budget, the visual sides are tacky and boring and the narrator has a tendency to bore the viewer to pieces with his slow, droning and overly correct pronunciation.

Although trying to appear as a retelling of facts from the period of hostilities between the Native Americans and European settlers this low budget ill conceived documentary remains part of the propaganda which defiles the very core of the issue: persecution and racial extermination. The narrator retells in a fable like context of military operations when the precise phrase is genocide. All the viewers be advised that graphical content and footage from early western movies is used to achieve the brainwash effect and restore the crooked image with which Hollywood depicted the struggle for survival of Native Americans. In this day and age when every hidden truth is being uncovered this production tries to muddle the past again by mixing historical facts with propagandist fiction.