Though entertaining and well acted, the script doesn't follow Sandoz's biography. Sandoz who traveled more than any other researcher in Ogalala country compiled much of her biography from descendants and other community members who carry stories of Crazy Horse. According to Sandoz The Strange Crazy Horse a political critic - opposing three primary features of Ogalala society: 1) the idea of paying for brides with horses (dowry); 2) the idea that community acknowledgment and recognition are synonymous with an individuals' spiritual or metaphysical (for lack of better words) standing 3) the idea that there are a fixed number of formal ways in which to seek knowledge and understanding. Crazy Horse according to Sandoz felt that the influx of Horses had corrupted Oglala society somewhat and made it more (in contemporary terms) - wealth bound and greed ridden. He also she suggests felt that there were in some respects formalized aspects of the society that were too rigid and so conflicted with (in contemporary terms) basic human rights. Sandoz's Crazy Horse in essence supported Oglala culture and society strongly only as a reformer he, by example suggested several small adjustments to the culture so as to make it better.
Rather than being unique in this I imagine, he showed up at a time when the West was interested in Native people much like they are interested in Middle Eastern peoples today. War seems to create a sensationalist fascination with the other and so some attention was given his life in the popular media. Many of the biographies seem to contain details that conflict strongly with Sandoz, but no other researcher seems to have spent the same amount of time both in archives and in the communities. She has a pointed, detailed yet equivocal touch and so I trust her account better than any I have seen. This book (as is common) puts the film to shame.
Rather than being unique in this I imagine, he showed up at a time when the West was interested in Native people much like they are interested in Middle Eastern peoples today. War seems to create a sensationalist fascination with the other and so some attention was given his life in the popular media. Many of the biographies seem to contain details that conflict strongly with Sandoz, but no other researcher seems to have spent the same amount of time both in archives and in the communities. She has a pointed, detailed yet equivocal touch and so I trust her account better than any I have seen. This book (as is common) puts the film to shame.