Response to Hauptman's Review of Sovereignty and Symbol

After reading Hauptman's (1990) review of my book, Sovereignty and Symbol: Indian-White Conflict at Ganienkeh, I feel compelled to address the numerous errors and misrepresentations the review contains. They begin with the false statement, after reference to events at the Moss Lake site of Ganienkeh from 1974 through 1977, that Gail H. Landsman ... was a witness to these events. This is a curious statement, because I certainly make no such claim. My book states that my fieldwork began in December 1979, after the occupation of Moss Lake was over and the community of Ganienkeh (and the dispute over it) had moved to the town of Altona. I was no more a witness to the Ganienkeh takeover or the shootings of Stephen Drake and Aprile Madigan than any other interested person reading newspaper reports at the time. As the first chapter of my book is quite explicit about both the methods I employed and the somewhat unusual circumstances of doing fieldwork in a dispute setting, it is particularly surprising that Hauptman makes such a mistake. However, this inaccuracy pales by comparison to the fact that his review addresses only a small portion of my book. Except for the brief acknowledgment that I provide some information about the non-Indian

Linguistics · Mistake · Newspaper · Political science · Politics · Reading (process · Sovereignty · Statement (logic · Symbol (formal · Witness · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography · History · Law · Philosophy · South Asian Studies and Conflicts