Chapter 3 of Hämäläinen’s Comanche Empire 2.0 (I mean Lakota America.) Covers the period 1760-1800. Another decent chapter but I’m starting to notice some troubling patterns in the book. First, I don’t see how this is in any way materially different from Comanche Empire.

This was a yet another tumultuous period in the region & for the Lakota. Lakota power fluctuated during the period with the collapse of the French Empire in North America after the French & Indian War & contending with other empires—British, Spanish, & American.

Trade was briefly disrupted, but the British quickly learned with Pontiac’s War that they needed to operate much the same way as the French to maintain peace & trade. This meant gift-giving & robust trade networks. By the 1770s, the Lakota were again powerful.

He argues that this period saw major Lakota expansion west of the Missouri River, reaching the Black Hills in 1776. This is particularly problematic. While Lakota wintercounts mention arriving at the Black Hills in 1775-1776, we believe we were there much earlier.

In fact, Lakota creation stories refer to the Black Hills as the site of creation. He acknowledges this, but gives no explanation of how Lakota people perceive this history & might refute it. With the foundation of St. Louis in 1764 as a major trade hub, trade was invigorated.

The Lakota began to orient themselves to new trade opportunities from St. Louis. By the 1790s, Lakota were firmly in control of the middle Missouri Valley & worked to keep out traders. They didn’t want them to trade with their enemies up river & wanted to be middlemen in trade.

Some other issues: where are the women? Did they exist? While he cites many of the ethnographic & ethnohistorical literature, he only uses it for historical content. We learn almost nothing about Lakota culture & it is an impersonal history with few names.

This is a legitimate methodological choice, but I suspect he avoided talking about Lakota culture because it would hurt his argument. Maybe he addresses it later. First, Lakota politics were decentralized by design. Little power resided in individuals or institutions.

This might hurt his “Lakota as Empire” which I expect him to start hitting up more in the next chapter or 2. Also, Lakota culture sees greed & the accumulation of wealth as failings of character. Prestige & political influence is gained through giving things away.

Highly decentralized government & an economic system based on gift-giving, redistribution, & kinship seem at odds with conceptions of empire. Again, I hope he addresses this later because it seems a big barrier to his argument. Kinship is another important aspect.

Occasionally mentions kinship but fails to explain how Lakota kinship was absolutely central & crucial in Lakota culture. Kinship was the basis for the entire economic system, for politics & diplomacy, & social structure. Its impossible to overemphasize the importance of kinship.

Overall, the first 3 chapters are good for putting 150 years of pre-1800 Lakota/Dakota history into a coherent narrative. There are few other works that do that. However, there are issues as mentioned above. He tacks on a broad continental history at the end of the chapter.