Historians use different formats to describe events in history. Some historians use videos to portray certain events while others use books to put their thoughts and opinions out to readers. In Custer on Canvas: Representing Indians, Memory and Violence in the New West by Norman K. Denzin, Denzin uses performance ethnography to tell the story of the events surrounding Custer’s Last Stand. Using this format was very ingenuous as it showed the many different sides to Custer’s battle. Presenting the information in a play format brought to light the different viewpoints on the battle from the Native American’s opinions to the Americans to the artists. Denzin’s approach of presenting those debates about the battle elevates his overall argument that
…show more content…
Denzin’s choice of presenting evidence in a play format is brilliant here as it shows the Native American’s view of the battle while white American history and paintings do not. As shown earlier in Denzin’s quote of “There is no effort to present the battle through the eyes of the Indians, including their fierce defense of their village” there are not many writings on the Native Americans point of view. Denzin uses many different characters to prove the many different opinions of the battle. Coyote 1, one of Denzin’s many characters, says, “THEY ATTACKED OUR VILLAGE! We fought back to protect ourselves. How did they become the victims? It’s easy to believe in a conspiracy theory here. The press jumped all over this story so they could protect Custer’s image and justify the “Great Sioux War.” Using performance ethnography Denzin shows that the Native Americans see the Battle of Little Bighorn as a battle of defense. They did not want to fight the Americans but had to in order to protect their village and their …show more content…
By presenting the information in the form of a play Denzin recognizes each side of the story. He gives voice to those who were silenced by the government. Using multiple characters ranging from soldiers to artists to Native Americans allows numerous accounts of the battle to be told. This allows readers to rethink what they already thought was official history and to allow readers to make their own opinions of the battle and if Custer is really the hero history claims he
Denzin’s choice of presenting evidence in a play format is brilliant here as it shows the Native American’s view of the battle while white American history and paintings do not. As shown earlier in Denzin’s quote of “There is no effort to present the battle through the eyes of the Indians, including their fierce defense of their village” there are not many writings on the Native Americans point of view. Denzin uses many different characters to prove the many different opinions of the battle. Coyote 1, one of Denzin’s many characters, says, “THEY ATTACKED OUR VILLAGE! We fought back to protect ourselves. How did they become the victims? It’s easy to believe in a conspiracy theory here. The press jumped all over this story so they could protect Custer’s image and justify the “Great Sioux War.” Using performance ethnography Denzin shows that the Native Americans see the Battle of Little Bighorn as a battle of defense. They did not want to fight the Americans but had to in order to protect their village and their …show more content…
By presenting the information in the form of a play Denzin recognizes each side of the story. He gives voice to those who were silenced by the government. Using multiple characters ranging from soldiers to artists to Native Americans allows numerous accounts of the battle to be told. This allows readers to rethink what they already thought was official history and to allow readers to make their own opinions of the battle and if Custer is really the hero history claims he