If you haven't heard of it, it's a book written by a whiteguy/settler by the name of Steve Hendricks, a yale grad.

i want to share some of my misgivings, and just let it go from there.

The pages where i found suspicion were (**denotes especially curious):
53, 79, 91, *114*, 124, 153, 167, 170, 179, 181, 186, 188-190, 206, 208, 221, *224*, 225, 236, 340, *368*, 383, 431. Also near the front where the author calls Candy Hamilton a "do gooder" (seemed off-handedly hostile to me).

For those seeking education from the Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash tragedy (and the hype attacking John Trudell in a most suspect way), there was the video-taped statement made by Arlo: 318, 319, and related notes 467. (Re: the first two pages; someone claiming that they are with the Native Youth Movement --and using some of their art in indymedia communications along with their publishing, i.e. portland.indymedia.org-- has claimed that Trudell's words alone made for extraditing John Graham; this appears to be misinformation, but not discussed in the CounterPunch.org articles.)

I'll pull up an especially curious thing said by Hendricks on page 224 where he says that there is "little evidence" to support Dennis Banks' "claim" that the f.b.i. wanted to ambush them. In his earlier book, _Loud Hawk_ (or is it _Loudhawk_?), Ken Stern tells another story entirely; which I assume is based on actual proof! (Who is wrong, then?)

I never heard (and may not *need to know*) why Russell Means knocked Hendricks' glasses off when he was promoing his book, but the following from page 114 moves me to see how he mighta deserved it (if not a bigger knock):

"...if [Dennis] Banks ever showed [Anna Mae] more loyalty than a bull shows one of his heifers, it is nowhere recorded."

And how about this little jab to Means himself:

"I suspected [R. Means'] memory might be impaired by the money he stood to receive from a film about the siege of Wounded Knee."

Geesh, where does an outsider whiteguy get such pushy arrogance? (oh, i'm sorry, it's *normal* ain't it,,,)

On a more general note, on the next page Hendricks brings out a valid truth when he rightly brings up the idea of returning land (i.e. b.l.a. and u.s.f.s. lands, not private lands) to indigenous folks. He says:
"For the ranchers and loggers and others who now use the government lands, the handover could be done gradually so as not to disrupt existing leases. In the meantime, rents from the leases could be paid to the Lakotas."

Finally, Hendricks' chosen way of backing up his investigations was quite unorthodox. I mean, you have to pretty much stumble onto the back part where, to "shorten" the book, he takes short quotes from cited pages (*Not* cited on the original pages!) and then backs them up. Tho, where he says you can go to his website and see *more* of the notes, i personally *couldn't* find anything there! i guess you're supposed to contact him directly for that? (sheesh) (is this the kind of confusion to be now expected from graduates of "ivy league" schools? Or am i missing something?)