Bloodland: A Family Story of Oil, Greed and Murder on the Osage Reservation (Part One)

FM:  In the Prologue of this book, the author gives us a rather too-clear idea of how much the subject matter means to him personally.  On one level, I empathize with his feelings.  But on another level, I have always had a problem with the “look-what-your-ancestors-did-to-my-ancestors” mentality.  Yes, he’s saying that “discrimination of the most violent kind” was “directed against one half of [his] ancestors by the other half,” so he’s not really pointing fingers.  But I have the same discomfort when today’s Jews discuss the Holocaust, or today’s American Blacks discuss “reparations” for slavery.  It’s true that we should never forget how horrible different ethnic groups can be to one another.  But isn’t this veneration of the differences, the “specialness” of one’s ethnic group – at least on some level – part of the problem?  I am of Scottish descent.  I don’t refer to myself as Scottish-American; I would feel ridiculous doing so.  Heritage is interesting.  It doesn’t and shouldn’t “define” us as hyphenated Americans in any meaningful way, in my opinion, as the author of this book seems to insist it does for him.

CJ:  I agree completely with the ancestors outlook FM. Although, I think we might be a tad on the young side and influenced more by the 5 Civilized Tribes than the Osage to completely understand the point of view being expressed. 

FM:  But the over-reacting doesn’t end there.  If you were to learn that your biological mother, who had died when you were a baby, didn’t die of a medical problem, as you had been led to believe, but committed suicide, that would come as quite a shock.  But according to Mr. McAuliffe, “If there ever was a moral or ethical jawbreaker, this was it…” and it would “force [you] to change the way you define [yourself], and to realize that … the whole foundation of [your] life, had been a lie.”  Sorry if I seem callous, but I don’t think any psychologically healthy individual is going to “define herself” according to the poor choices of ancestors or parents made long ago.

CJ:  The author's mother seemed less reactive to the news of the suicide than the author. I believe that any such news in family history would be disturbing, but that extreme reaction with an ancestor the author didn't even know did seem a bit overkill. At points it seems he is trying to be a dime store novelist rather than present a historical event.

FM:  There is a nice flow to the prose, making this a very “readable” account.  And yet, for me, it’s a little hard to care about the characters.  In a work of fiction – which, of course, I realize this is not - the author’s ability to make us care about the characters is important.  While the events depicted in this narrative are interesting to varying degrees, they happen to people we know nothing about, not famous people we already have an interest in.  This author’s task is made difficult by the fact that we have never heard of these people; the historical events are what have drawn us.  Not that we’ve been misled; the rather ungainly title clearly signals us that we’re reading “A Family Story.”

CJ:  So, history lesson aside, I also agree that the author's narrative is a bit on the weak side. The writing does not flow smoothly as he jumps back and forth between thoughts. I find myself rereading thinking maybe I skipped a sentence or a paragraph. 

FM:  “Thoughts and emotions bombarded her brain like bullets in a Nintendo game.”  Ouch.  As an author, if colorful metaphors are not one of your strengths, then by all means, you should leave them out. 

CJ:  Nintendo? Really?  Despite the mediocre writing I believe this one is going to turn out to be very interesting.

FM:  This author does have other strengths.  It’s a little early in the book to determine, perhaps, but the impression here is that he is quite adept at researching and presenting the facts in a way that give us not only good information, but also a rather authentic feel for what it must have been like to have lived through the events. 

CJ:  The conversation with Bat at the barbershop drew me in. How intriguing to talk to someone who knew your ancestor well. Old people have the best history stories! His conversation was also important for us to get a perspective on the white views of Natives, and other non-white, non-protestants in the region. As much as he knew it was not politically correct thinking today, he still held racist views in his heart.

FM:  A large segment of the end of Part One is given over to Kathleen and her perspective on the story.  The implication seems to be that the prose in this section is hers, word for word.  If so, she is as good, perhaps better at it than the author, and possibly deserves some credit – at least on the cover - as a co-author!  Her perspective on how it feels to hide your ethnicity, as if it’s a skeleton in your closet, is extremely well presented.

CJ:  The historical facts presented line up with everything I've ever studied. We must remember that the Osage Tribe did not become "civilized" until early in the 20th century. Thus the pain of their mistreatment is even fresher than that of slavery in the minds of the descendants. In 1965 when the author was told he was Indian, the U.S. Government had yet to officially recognize tribes and there was much shame involved with being Native, especially if your blood was of a plains tribe. Think about your old John Wayne movies. The Osage were/are a very proud warring tribe, not favorably looked on by whites like our neighbor Cherokee.

 

Next week's Segment: Part Two and up to Chapter 8