The violated vision Book

While well written and thought provoking, his arguments leave a lot to be desired. His premise is certainly not wrong, and has been argued by others, as well, but his notions of Indian revenge on the Beaver can only be believed if one refuses to look at his notes, which clearly show an utter lack of sources for the era with which he makes his case. The evidence, in my opinion, is lacking greatly and thus his argument is flawed. Still, there is quality in the book and it is an easy read -- and well written. And, if you are a historian, it is a good book to read, given it's significance, "historiographically speaking".