Review: ‘Dances With Wolves’

Robert Greenberger

Robert Greenberger is best known to comics fans as the editor of Who's Who In The DC Universe, Suicide Squad, and Doom Patrol. He's written and edited several Star Trek novels and is the author of The Essential Batman Encyclopedia. He's known for his work as an editor for Comics Scene, Starlog, and Weekly World News, as well as holding executive positions at both Marvel Comics and DC Comics.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. mike weber says:

    Okay – to start with, any review of anything (or article about anything) that uses the term “Native American” like it’s the Only True And Proper Term is automatically behind the 8-ball with me.

    I am a Native American. My ancestors came from England/Scotland (in the very early days of the settling of Georgia) and from Bohemia (two great-grandfathers). No one is more “native” than i. Period.

    Their ancestors arrived on foot earlier than my ancestors, who came by boat … but there are no “native” Americans in the sense implied by that little bit of PC cant – because humanity did not evolve here. Take it back far enough, we’re all immigrants.

    (Not even Obama – but that’s for another rant about birthers.)

    I have never known anyone of American Indian descent who insisted on being called “Native American” or used the term to apply to him/her self.

    (Come to think, one guy i used to run into at SF cons who was a member of an activist organisation with “Native American” in its name called himself and others like him Indians.)

    In fact, one of the few American Indians i have ever heard use the term “Native American” to describe himself was an activist ranting about Indian sports mascots on an Atlanta radio station, who, when asked what he thought about the Atlanta Braves’ then-mascot, Chief Nockahoma, who was a full-blooded Georgia-born Indian, said “Oh – him. He’s a {i don’t recall the tribe}; all they ever did was hang around the trading posts.” (I think he may have used the term “Uncle Tomahawk”, too.)

    Take a trip up to Cherokee NC, or out to Oklahoma, or up to the Rez in Arizona; see how many self-identified “Native Americans” you meet.

    Canada refers to Indians as “First Nations” or “First Tribes”- i like that; it’s descriptive, dignified … and correct.

    As to “Dances with Wolves” itself – never saw it, likely never will; at the time it was in theatres, i couldn’t afford to go to movies … and Kevin Costner sets my teeth on edge.

    And i haven’t seen a review yet – either one that loved it or one that hated it – that doesn’t make it sound like a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism.

    • jdm says:

      Wow. What an ignorant comment. And the fact that he balks at the term “Native American” yet uses the far more derrogatory term “American Indian” (which implies that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west) is both ironic and tragic in and of itself.
      He says he never saw the movie and never will, so why bother reading about it or commenting on the review of it, which was spot on in my opinion.
      This movie was perhaps the most honorable look at the Native American plight at the hands of white Euro-conquerers, yet this man, is bashing it.
      Just because he was born here and his ancestors were, does not give him grounds to make mildy racist comments protesting that he deserves the same level of respect that those who are depicted in the film do for their suffering. The film is not about multi-generation Euro descendents who call themselves “natives.”
      Only his epic ignorance of what the terms are meant to indicate shows through in his attempt to decry an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe.

      • mike weber says:

        Please note that i said – and i say it from personal knowledge, as well as the statements of others – that many, if not the the majority, of the persons in question refer to themselves as Indians. If you’re not aware of that, the rest of your remarks are worthless.

        However, my point is that the term “Native American” is just as wrong as you claim “American Indian” to be. They are no more (and no less) “native” than i, or any other person born here.

        You seem to have missed the point i made that i made that i don’t know of any “man-on-the-street” Indians who are offended by the term “Indian” – including my one friend, an Indian-rights activist, who was personally rather amused by “Native American”. Let’s face it – “Native American” is as much a iece of PC terminology as “African American” – which my white friends who were born in Capetown found mildly amusing, too.

        Also, of course, in your zeal to anathematise me, you apparently missed the point that i fully approve of the Canadian alternative to “American Indian”, “First Nations/Tribes”, which, in addition to not being “offensive” (in the minds of those who want to be offended), is also a lot more accurate than “Native American”.

        Are you, perhaps, or do you have personal knowledge of, the Sioux? (Or any other Amerind tribe?) Can you, on that basis, attest that the film is “an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe”?

        I didn’t say that the portrayal of the Indians in the film was specifically inaccurate, just that (like Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman, which i did see occasional episodes of, and which was an obvious attempt to ride the coattails of this film) it is probably “a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism.” I also said, note well, that it’s not the movie itself, but Kevin Costner in particular, that is why i will never see it.

        Incidentally – the term “American Indian” does not “imply” “… that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west…”; It is precisely what happened, no “imply” about it. If you’re going to quibble about definitions of words, at least learn the meaning of the words you use to quibble with.

  2. mike weber says:

    Okay – to start with, any review of anything (or article about anything) that uses the term "Native American" like it's the Only True And Proper Term is automatically behind the 8-ball with me.I am a Native American. My ancestors came from England/Scotland (in the very early days of the settling of Georgia) and from Bohemia (two great-grandfathers). No one is more "native" than i. Period.Their ancestors arrived on foot earlier than my ancestors, who came by boat … but there are no "native" Americans in the sense implied by that little bit of PC cant – because humanity did not evolve here. Take it back far enough, we're all immigrants.(Not even Obama – but that's for another rant about birthers.)I have never known anyone of American Indian descent who insisted on being called "Native American" or used the term to apply to him/her self.(Come to think, one guy i used to run into at SF cons who was a member of an activist organisation with "Native American" in its name called himself and others like him Indians.)In fact, one of the few American Indians i have ever heard use the term "Native American" to describe himself was an activist ranting about Indian sports mascots on an Atlanta radio station, who, when asked what he thought about the Atlanta Braves' then-mascot, Chief Nockahoma, who was a full-blooded Georgia-born Indian, said "Oh – him. He's a {i don't recall the tribe}; all they ever did was hang around the trading posts." (I think he may have used the term "Uncle Tomahawk", too.)Take a trip up to Cherokee NC, or out to Oklahoma, or up to the Rez in Arizona; see how many self-identified "Native Americans" you meet.Canada refers to Indians as "First Nations" or "First Tribes"- i like that; it's descriptive, dignified … and correct.As to "Dances with Wolves" itself – never saw it, likely never will; at the time it was in theatres, i couldn't afford to go to movies … and Kevin Costner sets my teeth on edge.And i haven't seen a review yet – either one that loved it or one that hated it – that doesn't make it sound like a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism.

    • jdm says:

      Wow. What an ignorant comment. And the fact that he balks at the term "Native American" yet uses the far more derrogatory term "American Indian" (which implies that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west) is both ironic and tragic in and of itself.He says he never saw the movie and never will, so why bother reading about it or commenting on the review of it, which was spot on in my opinion.This movie was perhaps the most honorable look at the Native American plight at the hands of white Euro-conquerers, yet this man, is bashing it.Just because he was born here and his ancestors were, does not give him grounds to make mildy racist comments protesting that he deserves the same level of respect that those who are depicted in the film do for their suffering. The film is not about multi-generation Euro descendents who call themselves "natives."Only his epic ignorance of what the terms are meant to indicate shows through in his attempt to decry an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe.

      • mike weber says:

        Please note that i said – and i say it from personal knowledge, as well as the statements of others – that many, if not the the majority, of the persons in question refer to themselves as Indians. If you're not aware of that, the rest of your remarks are worthless.However, my point is that the term "Native American" is just as wrong as you claim "American Indian" to be. They are no more (and no less) "native" than i, or any other person born here.You seem to have missed the point i made that i made that i don't know of any "man-on-the-street" Indians who are offended by the term "Indian" – including my one friend, an Indian-rights activist, who was personally rather amused by "Native American". Let's face it – "Native American" is as much a iece of PC terminology as "African American" – which my white friends who were born in Capetown found mildly amusing, too.Also, of course, in your zeal to anathematise me, you apparently missed the point that i fully approve of the Canadian alternative to "American Indian", "First Nations/Tribes", which, in addition to not being "offensive" (in the minds of those who want to be offended), is also a lot more accurate than "Native American".Are you, perhaps, or do you have personal knowledge of, the Sioux? (Or any other Amerind tribe?) Can you, on that basis, attest that the film is "an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe"?I didn't say that the portrayal of the Indians in the film was specifically inaccurate, just that (like Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman, which i did see occasional episodes of, and which was an obvious attempt to ride the coattails of this film) it is probably "a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism." I also said, note well, that it's not the movie itself, but Kevin Costner in particular, that is why i will never see it.Incidentally – the term "American Indian" does not "imply" "… that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west…"; It is precisely what happened, no "imply" about it. If you're going to quibble about definitions of words, at least learn the meaning of the words you use to quibble with.