Review: Ken Burns Explains the Anti–Native American Plot To Kill Bison
The American Buffalo documentary charts the fall and rise of American bison.

The population of bison, North America's signature charismatic mammal, went from around 60 million in 1800 to just 300 by the dawn of the 20th century. Therein lies one hell of a story, told startlingly well by Ken Burns in his two-part series The American Buffalo.
Burns, North America's signature documentarian, is famous for taking huge swings at mighty subjects: baseball, the Civil War, jazz, Vietnam, and so forth. But this time, by focusing more tightly on a smaller topic and using a lighter-than-usual interpretative touch, he lets viewers reach an infuriating conclusion on their own. This marvelous beast was hunted to extinction by the rapacious appetites of westward expansion and the Industrial Revolution, yes; but the genocide was also understood at the time as the sadly necessary cost of completing the permanent subjugation of Native Americans.
Slaughtering America's emblematic native species, future president Teddy Roosevelt wrote in his 1885 book Hunting Trips of a Ranchman, was "the only way of solving the Indian question," forcing them to "at least partially abandon their savage mode of life." For the wide-ranging Indians of the vast American plains, buffalo were the central source of food, shelter, tools, and even religion. Both human and animal populations were considered an obstacle to settlers ravenous for land, safe passage, and right of way.
In less skilled hands, such raw material would make for screechy polemics. Burns instead structures the two-part series to portray a murderous decline followed by a nearly redemptive rise. Roosevelt and other characters who took an active role in bison's near-extinction then turned around and became key to the animal's nearly miraculous rejuvenation. (There are more than 360,000 bison now.) Most movingly, Burns gives Native Americans their proper role in telling this story, deepening the tragedy yet underscoring their fundamental Americanness.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I watched this show... Good stuff!
What the USA did to the bison is what Trump and His Trumpaloos are doing to democracy right now. 360,000 bison now v/s 60 million earlier isn't something to dance in the street about, but it is a recovery from the nadir. Hopefully democracy (peaceful transfers of power, etc.) will recover after Trump and Trumpism fades away. It can NOT happen too soon!
Late-1800s Americans: "We must KILL all of the buffaloes! It is the only way to pussy-grab all of the heathen, savage, wild Indians!"
Trumpaloos today: "We must KILL democracy, and replace it with mobocracy! It is the only way to pussy-grab all of the heathen, savage, wild Demon-Craps, AND all of their allies, which are illegal sub-humans, trannies, accused “groomers”, abortionists, gays, heathens, infidels, vaxxers, mask-wearers, atheists, dirty hippies, Jews, witches, or, the very WORST of them all, being one of those accused of STEALING THE ERECTIONS OF OUR DEAR LEADER!!!"
Project much?
It's Democrats that try to exclude candidates from the ballot. It's Biden's staffers that threatened Amazon into banning books and worked with social media to block
mistrue information. It's Democrats that suppressed votes by providing non-functional printers for ballots in last year's election in Arizona. It's Democrats that have opposed every measure to make voting secure for over 30 years.https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?
The above is mostly strictly factual, with very little editorializing. When I post it, the FACTS never get refuted… I only get called names. But what do you expect from morally, ethically, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt Trumpturds?
Totalitarians want to turn the GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).
Der TrumpfenFuhrer ***IS*** responsible for agitating for democracy to be replaced by mobocracy!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses.
Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”
September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.
Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, trumpanzees gone apeshit will be trumpanzees gone apeshit, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
It really should immediately make us think of Krystallnacht. Hitler and the NAZIs set up for this by constantly blaming Jews for all things bad. Jew-haters will be Jew-haters, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Hitler was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
Now, this is how you TDS.
Trump's Deranged Supporters (TDS) DO have us all buffaloed, all across the range! Everywhere, where the beer and the cantaloupe play!
Political persecution in the courts and low level state officials blocking ballot access for popular opposition candidates is peaceful, I suppose, but that doesn't make it right.
People were much more forward thinking back then. Those 60 million buffalo were killing the planet with all their farting and burping.
Ken Burns offers a compelling insight into the dark history of the plot to exterminate bison in his documentary. Through meticulous storytelling, he unveils the systematic effort to devastate Native American culture and livelihoods, shedding light on a crucial chapter often overlooked in American history.
"alexanderthomas 59 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Ken Burns offers a compelling insight into the dark history of the plot to exterminate bison in his documentary. Through meticulous storytelling, he unveils the systematic effort to devastate Native American culture and livelihoods, shedding light on a crucial chapter often overlooked in American history."
Why do I suspect this will soon enough be replaced by a lame as all hell ad?
The American Aboriginals were living a stone age existence with constant warfare between their tribes and assaulting the civilian population of Europeans expanding west. They over hunted the wild game driving several species extinct before the first European set foot on the continent.
Tribes often set fire to the grasslands to stampeed herds of bison and other animals over cliffs as a manner of hunting which led to piles of dead animals so numerous even the predators and scavengers couldn't manage to eat what the tribes left behind. At places like Buffalo Vore Jump in Wyoming they find many skeletons of animals that don't even show the marks of teeth and claws. They died and rotted away, their meat and hides wasted.
Lewis and Clark commented on the scarcity of game on the lands the tribes claimed compared to the wide variety and large populations of game in the areas between tribal hunting areas.
The aboriginals practiced infanticide to keep their numbers manageable and regularly raided other tribes for women to turn into slaves. Their women were second class citizens who had no impact on the decisions made by the males of the tribe.
The myth of the noble savage is as pervasive as it is wrong. Even the image of the crying aboriginal in the public service commercial about littering shown in the 80s is a lie. The aboriginal was actually Italian.
There are very few good guys in history.
Nobody gets out of history smelling like a rose.
The political left likes to canonize primitive people who got what they deserved when they went to war with advanced civilizations. Living in South Dakota I get an ear full of that crap. We've got a home grown terrorist group called the NDN collective. They want us white people to give them back the lands they claim were theirs. I guess they want to make the whole Midwest into the kind of shitholes their reservations are.
"The American Aboriginals were living a stone age existence with constant warfare between their tribes"
Not quite. You may get some benefit from reading Dave Graeber's last book, The Dawn of Everything, if you're into reading and books.
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CE3461B68D7A62C1F406ADC411891957
A passage about the 'buffalo police' of the plains Indians.
Plains nations were one-time farmers who had largely abandoned cereal agriculture, after re-domesticating escaped Spanish horses and adopting a largely nomadic mode of life. In late summer and early autumn, small and highly mobile bands of Cheyenne and Lakota would congregate in large settlements to make logistical preparations for the buffalo hunt. At this most sensitive time of year they appointed a police force that exercised full coercive powers, including the right to imprison, whip or fine any offender who endangered the proceedings. Yet, as Lowie observed, this ‘unequivocal authoritarianism’ operated on a strictly seasonal and temporary basis. Once the hunting season – and the collective Sun Dance rituals that followed – were complete, such authoritarianism gave way to what he called ‘anarchic’ forms of organization, society splitting once again into small, mobile bands. Lowie’s observations are startling:
In order to ensure a maximum kill, a police force – either coinciding with a military club, or appointed ad hoc, or serving by virtue of clan affiliation – issued orders and restrained the disobedient. In most of the tribes they not only confiscated game clandestinely procured, but whipped the offender, destroyed his property, and, in case of resistance, killed him. The very same organisation which in a murder case would merely use moral suasion turned into an inexorable State agency during a buffalo drive. However … coercive measures extended considerably beyond the hunt: the soldiers also forcibly restrained braves intent on starting war parties that were deemed inopportune by the chief; directed mass migrations; supervised the crowds at a major festival; and might otherwise maintain law and order.46
‘During a large part of the year,’ Lowie continued, ‘the tribe simply did not exist as such; and the families or minor unions of familiars that jointly sought a living required no special disciplinary organization. The soldiers were thus a concomitant of numerically strong aggregations, hence functioned intermittently rather than continuously.’ But the soldiers’ sovereignty, he stressed, was no less real for its temporary nature. As a result, Lowie insisted that Plains Indians did in fact know something of state power, even though they never actually developed a state.
It’s easy to see why the neo-evolutionists of the 1950s and 1960s might not have known quite what to do with this legacy of fieldwork observations. They were arguing for the existence of discrete stages of political organization – successively: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, states – and held that the stages of political development mapped, at least very roughly, on to similar stages of economic development: hunter-gatherers, gardeners, farmers, industrial civilization. It was confusing enough that people like the Nambikwara seemed to jump back and forth, over the course of the year, between economic categories. The Cheyenne, Crow, Assiniboine or Lakota would appear to jump regularly from one end of the political spectrum to the other. They were a kind of band/state amalgam. In other words, they threw everything askew.
David Graeber was basically a socialist, certainly an anarchist and anti-capitalist, putting his spin onto everything. He built narratives to align with his worldview that don’t quite match reality. He’s a revisionist who wants to justify his values by inserting those values into historical contexts. I wouldn’t call him a reliable historian, or at least, if you read his work, you really need to read the work of someone who disagrees with him to decide which you find more credible.
I read the whole book cover to cover, and you're full of it!!! The book is thoroughly foot-noted and detailed as all git-out, and his (and his co-author) kept their politics OUT of it! History is what it is, to an honest, non-axe-grinding historian, which describes the 2 authors of this book! They described MANY-MANY cases of so-called "primitive" societies deliberately CHOOSING to move back and forth between authoritarian and non-authoritarian, agricultural v/s hunter-gatherer, and individualistic v/s communitarian! Show-off conspicuous consumption and abhorring the same!!! ALL over the map!
"Everything is political"... Projecting, are we?
"David Graeber was basically a socialist, certainly an anarchist and anti-capitalist, putting his spin onto everything."
I meant the book recommendation to MrMxyzptlk who wrote with interest of the American plains Indians. It may offend your sensibilities.
"He’s a revisionist who wants to justify his values by inserting those values into historical contexts."
The authors draw on anthropologists like the Austrian Robert Lowie (circa 1900) for their emphasis on the changing seasons in Indian life, swinging back and forth between statism and anarchism, hierarchy to leveler forms of organization. It's the subsequent researchers, who ignored Lowie's work, who are the revisionists.
"Recall, though, that Lowie’s original piece included one additional section, on the ‘evolutionary germs’ of top-down authority, which describes the seasonal ‘police’ and ‘soldiers’ of the Plains societies in detail. Clastres simply left it out. Why?
The answer is probably a simple one: seasonality was confusing. In fact, it’s kind of a wild card. The societies of the Great Plains created structures of coercive authority that lasted throughout the entire season of hunting and the rituals that followed, dissolving when they dispersed into smaller groups. But those of central Brazil dispersed into foraging bands as a way of asserting a political authority that was ineffectual in village settings. Among the Inuit, fathers ruled in the summertime; but in winter gatherings patriarchal authority and even norms of sexual propriety were challenged, subverted or simply melted away. The Kwakiutl were hierarchical at both times of year, but nonetheless maintained different forms of hierarchy, giving effective police powers to performers in the Midwinter Ceremonial (the ‘bear dancers’ and ‘fool dancers’) that could be exercised only during the actual performance of the ritual. At other times, aristocrats commanded great wealth but couldn’t give their followers direct orders. Many Central African forager societies are egalitarian all year round, but appear to alternate monthly between a ritual order dominated by men and another dominated by women.51
In other words, there is no single pattern. The only consistent phenomenon is the very fact of alteration, and the consequent awareness of different social possibilities. What all this confirms is that searching for ‘the origins of social inequality’ really is asking the wrong question.
If human beings, through most of our history, have moved back and forth fluidly between different social arrangements, assembling and dismantling hierarchies on a regular basis, maybe the real question should be ‘how did we get stuck?’ How did we end up in one single mode? How did we lose that political self-consciousness, once so typical of our species? How did we come to treat eminence and subservience not as temporary expedients, or even the pomp and circumstance of some kind of grand seasonal theatre, but as inescapable elements of the human condition? If we started out just playing games, at what point did we forget that we were playing?"
Thanks, mtrueman, clearly you've read the book and "get it"!
The opposite stance of "everything is inevitably political, including history" is what leads us to Republican "history" v/s Democrat "history", airbrushed photos with non-persons erased, and constantly changed names of schools, army bases, streets, cities, etc.! Washington kept slaves (or did he really?). Should Washington DC and the State of Washington be re-named? This is endless wasted time and energy!
The (non-partisan) truth will set us free! Including truths about history!
"Lewis and Clark commented on the scarcity of game on the lands the tribes claimed compared to the wide variety and large populations of game in the areas between tribal hunting areas."
I can imagine! Where I grew up, arrowheads were scarce as hen's teeth. Miles to the north, and miles to the south, they are plentiful. I learned that where I grew was "DMZ" between warring tribes for a LONG time, where hunters feared to tread, for fear of the enemy tribe. I bet that the game animals thrived there!
The myth of the noble savage is as pervasive as it is wrong.
Absolutely agree, but then American's feel bad about our own home-grown attempt at genocide one supposes.
By modern sensibilities such a thing is abhorrent, but then we haven't seen the like of the American Indian in the modern world outside of groups like Hamas so perhaps it's not so surprising that early Americans went after them so hard.
There is plenty of blame to go around for how American Indians were treated. They were certainly not innocent or noble though, that much is a fact.
What is nobility?
"Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honor."
To say that American Indians showed no signs of courage, generosity or honor seems the acme of bigotry. And to use this supposed lack of nobility as an excuse to engage in genocide is monstrous.
Thanks again mtrueman and heartily agreed!!!
You like books, clearly. I recommend "Indian Wars of the West", Paul Wellman, https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880298340/reasonmagazinea-20/ ... To me, it was a tear-jerker... So many stupid, needless wars! Aren't they all? SOOO much senseless suffering!!! But this book makes it VERY clear that there was ego and vanity, good and evil, power-greed and humility, peace-seeking and war-seeking, plenty of all of that to go around... In many people of all kinds, and in many tribes (and nations, which really are the same as tribes), of all kinds! EXCELLENT history book! But it makes me sad, very sad!
There was no Genocide of the aboriginals. They went to war with the United States. They had their fair share of victorious battles and did their fair share of atrocities. Bad actors on both sides.
Remind me, how many Nazis did the Jews kill during their genocide?
Remind me, how many Americans did the Bison kill during their genocide?
You don't need battles to commit genocide, as the American experience would show you if only you'd open your eyes. Read the article again. Here is the first sentence:
"The population of bison, North America's signature charismatic mammal, went from around 60 million in 1800 to just 300 by the dawn of the 20th century."
The bison were the principle source of food, shelter and other essentials for the plains Indians. By depriving the Indians of the bison, the Americans were committing genocide, ensuring the destruction of Indian nations and culture without necessarily engaging the Indians in battles. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Perpetrating genocide against a people who are armed and dangerous is a tricky business. Eliminating their food source means the same goals can be achieved with minimum risk and low cost. In a way it's more nefarious than the Nazis who provided food, (typically 1300 calories/day) clothes and shelter to inmates at their concentration camps.
Yeah, that's what happens in wars of conquest. As a marxist academic, you should understand this.
It's what happens in genocides. War is a different thing. In Afghanistan for example the Americans didn't target the local economy for elimination but tried to protect it. In this case it was opium production which increased dramatically after 2001. So there was war in Afghanistan, and occupation, but no genocide or attempted genocide.
Your urge is to normalize genocide, and make it an acceptable part of our daily lives, rather than condemn it and those who perpetrate it. I figure your stance is connected to your support of the genocide of Palestinians by the Israelis, which you either deny, minimize or excuse.
Most of North America's large mammals were hunted to extinction within 2,000 years of the Siberian-Americans arrival. Those Clovis points were quite effective.
And some have theorized that the abundance of birds and game animals the early American colonists saw in the 17th century were due to a population rebound of those animals, after they had been hunted extensively by the Native Americans, who then had their own substantial population decline after encountering European explorers and the associated viruses in the 16th century.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I've read likewise. When Europeans got to California, there was abundant game. Not only because Native American populations crashed due to white-people diseases, but ALSO because they over-populated and over-hunted, before their populations crashed and the game recovered! Here is what I read: You look at human "middens" (garbage dumps of bones etc.) out in California, and at the bottom of the bone-heaps you find deer, antelope, elk, etc. Then in the middle zones, ducks, geese, rabbits, raccoons... Middle-size game. By the time they got done over-populating, over-hunting, and starving, they were leaving the bones of songbirds, mice, voles, etc.!
Ha! I found it at last!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060213090658.htm
Early California: A Killing Field -- Research Shatters Utopian Myth, Finds Indians Decimated Birds
True
There was a plot to exterminate the buffalo followed by a plot to exterminate the gold And the plot to exterminate the copper And a plot to exterminate the silver And a plot to exterminate the lumber and a plot to exterminate the fish
You know who else wants to eliminate food animals and gain higher control over uncooperative savages?
You know who else had a final solution to solve a question?
Bill Gates?
It's perfectly OK when you starve colonizers.
Denmark?
(There are more than 360,000 bison now.)
Not really. The 'bison' living today are mostly mixed stock, a result of breeding genuine bison with domesticated cattle.
Bullshit. Most herds do not have any cattle genes. In those herds that do, it's less than 2%.
The population of bison, North America's signature charismatic mammal, went from around 60 million in 1800 to just 300 by the dawn of the 20th century.
Better:
The population of bison, North America's signature charismatic mammal, went from around 60 million at the beginning of the 19th century, to just 300 by the dawn of the 20th century.
Best:
The population of bison, North America's signature charismatic mammal, went from around 60 million in 1800 to just three hundred by 1900.
Both improvements "keep like things alike." The best one tightens the sentence.
I should have been an editor.
I should have been an editor.
Probably not, since if you were you'd be unemployed if Journalism trends are anything to go by.
"Spin! As far as the eye can see, nothing but spin!"
Was on the fence with a somewhat slanted Vietnam but after suggesting that the US was partly to blame for the Holocaust I just can't take Ken Burns seriously.
I can imagine that genocide in the form of American Indians' starvation actually was the reasoning process. I can also imagine that incenting tribes to occupy reservations was the primary motivation for some people. And I can also imagine that neither was uppermost in many peoples' minds.
I'm inclined to doubt that Burns actually accumulated conclusive evidence to answer this question, as "proof of thesis" has never been his chief concern in any of his better or lesser productions.
"And I can also imagine that neither was uppermost in many peoples’ minds. "
I don't think genocide was uppermost in anyone's mind. The term 'genocide' didn't even get coined until the 1940s as a response to what was happening with the Nazis in Europe. The extermination of the bison took place in the 19th century. Many people today still seem to believe that the only true and legitimate genocide was that perpetrated against Europe's Jews and any other use of the term is illegitimate and an insult to the memory of the Jewish holocaust victims.
If you are fighting a civilized nation you bomb their cities until their citizens have had enough and stop supporting the war.
When fighting primitive nomadic bands you can't bomb their cities. Most of the time you can't find their tents. So you find out that the buffalo keeps them going and make buffalo hide coats all the rage back east. Private enterprise takes care of the rest. Soon your enemy surrenders so their women and children don't starve. Peace achieved.
This marvelous beast was hunted to extinction by the rapacious appetites of westward expansion and the Industrial Revolution
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Where does this outright bigotry against pretty much everyone west of the Mississippi come from, and what are you doing to better yourself of this kind of hatefulness?
Would you have rather not had westward expansion? Would you have preferred an iron curtain between Industrial America, keeping the spear-chucking natives in a primitive state so they can chase around bison to their hearts content? And what of when the Oriental empires figure out that if they sail east they’ll eventually find a bunch of rich land that has nothing but loincloth wearing tribals chasing around your oh-so-precious bison?
Stop hating America. Stop hating Americans. Stop hating American Exceptionalism, you disgusting bigot.
forcing them to “at least partially abandon their savage mode of life.”
Is there something objectionable about that?
The buffalo population had swelled to 60 million because the native American hunters had been decimated by European diseases. These herds needed to be culled back sharply, though perhaps not all the way down to 300.