S01.E02: Nature's Empty Throne

[Thalia]

Quote

Jacob and the Yellowstone cowboys save one of their own before deciding their next move. Teonna continues to endure at the hands of Sister Mary. Cara and Emma discuss Elizabeth and Jack. Alexandra makes a bold decision.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Thalia

[circumvent]

The way this show butchered Africa is madding. There is no such thing as "breeding duo". Leopards don't hunt in pairs, they are solitary animals. Besides, one shot would be more than enough to scare them miles away. They wouldn't be ambushing a human being like that. Who is writing this crap? Now, if they are going to show people killing hyenas, I will suspend disbelief and enjoy myself. I hate them. 

More crap: the residential school girls all have long hair, a no-no for the catholics. They are also using their idigenous names. Another no-no. The nuns would give them "proper" names and refer to them by those names. Teonna would be dead by now, no second chances. They could at least have written a side story where another girl was killed, disappeared, that would at least make a little sense and raise more fear on the girls, I would be willing go with the story that a rebel could have survived the torture.

I am also annoyed by the lack of historical context and the victimization of the "Indians". I am reading a book that is about the real story of Thanksgiving, from before the Mayflower arrived, the relationships developed and how they turned on what happened. It is researched and footnoted. The show paints natives as passive, accepting of the advances of the white people. I know it was 300 years after the Mayflower, in 1923 there was government involvement, Reservations (that were not respected) but they would not accept the sheep and thank the white men. They would accept the sheep and make a comment about how the white man destroyed their land, that before they came they had the food they needed and the animals they killed to eat (cows are not indigenous to this continent). There is so much more they could do with teh story of colonization instead of having Jacob unironically preach about how men are their worse enemy because men will take all they have, "their" land. 

But obviously, I expect too much. This is a white people's story, white centered and whitewashed. 

[LoveLeigh]

10 hours ago, circumvent said:

The way this show butchered Africa is madding. There is no such thing as "breeding duo". Leopards don't hunt in pairs, they are solitary animals. Besides, one shot would be more than enough to scare them miles away. They wouldn't be ambushing a human being like that. Who is writing this crap? Now, if they are going to show people killing hyenas, I will suspend disbelief and enjoy myself. I hate them. 

More crap: the residential school girls all have long hair, a no-no for the catholics. They are also using their idigenous names. Another no-no. The nuns would give them "proper" names and refer to them by those names. Teonna would be dead by now, no second chances. They could at least have written a side story where another girl was killed, disappeared, that would at least make a little sense and raise more fear on the girls, I would be willing go with the story that a rebel could have survived the torture.

I am also annoyed by the lack of historical context and the victimization of the "Indians". I am reading a book that is about the real story of Thanksgiving, from before the Mayflower arrived, the relationships developed and how they turned on what happened. It is researched and footnoted. The show paints natives as passive, accepting of the advances of the white people. I know it was 300 years after the Mayflower, in 1923 there was government involvement, Reservations (that were not respected) but they would not accept the sheep and thank the white men. They would accept the sheep and make a comment about how the white man destroyed their land, that before they came they had the food they needed and the animals they killed to eat (cows are not indigenous to this continent). There is so much more they could do with teh story of colonization instead of having Jacob unironically preach about how men are their worse enemy because men will take all they have, "their" land. 

But obviously, I expect too much. This is a white people's story, white centered and whitewashed. 

1 hour ago, LoveLeigh said:

While it might be maddening in terms of historical truth regarding indigenous names and how men are the worst enemy, they saw it as "their" land. Yes, that is infuriating but that is how they saw it. The writers take a "poetic license" because this is not an historical piece but a drama centered around a family's history. Yes, it is the story of a white family. And it is a love story. That last scene of Alexandra chasing Spencer was glorious. This series is unfolding as a masterpiece. I do not expect total historical truth because it is not a documentary. I go to "The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America" by Thomas King for accuracy... not a TV show. I have ever seen any TV show or movie be totally correct, including Holocaust and Roots and JFK and Braveheart or Schindler's List got it all right. 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by LoveLeigh

[circumvent]

3 hours ago, LoveLeigh said:

 

I don't expect a documentary but I also expect a little more than pure whitewashing. This is a big production, a lot of money, they could certainly afford a better hair and make up, plus a better script. I am not annoyed by the characters, how they see themselves. I am annoyed by the script, and how there is no hint of some sort of "hollywoodian reparations". Some acknowledgment, in the script, that Jacob has no hint of the irony of what he says. It is not that hard to include that in there. It is also not hard to make the natives a little more assertive, instead of oh so grateful for the generosity of the white man. That's not who they were. Entertainment has educational value, specially in this country where school education is so bad. It does't take a lot of effort to include some reality in the mix. But Taylor Sheridan and team have this way of cut corners, like hiring an Asian actor to play an indigenous main character. It only shows to me how uninterested he is in telling real stories.

As for the Africa eloping, not my cup of tea. I guess I will store that under "eye rolling then vomiting, overdone scene". It and accuracy is all a matter of expectations. For such a big production, I - foolishly - expected more creativity and accuracy

[Sunnykm]

I'm enjoying the show so far.  It has more "dialogue" than Yellowstone which is easier to watch than the declarative zingers each line of Yellowstone seems to have from each character.

[Snazzy Daisy]

RIP Kagiso.

I wonder when the 3 main plots will intersect. At what point Spencer will return home?

And how Teonna’s story will fit into all these? The lady who goes to see Superintendent Worth, she must be Teonna’s grandmother, right?

The attraction between Spencer and Alexandra is obvious, unlike the other dull couples - Elsa/Ennis, Elsa/Sam, Kayce/Monica etc.

A must have character in this franchise - a fearless blonde aka Lightning Yellow Hair. In 1923, we get a hopeless romantic ones.

So far, am only interested in Spencer, Alexandra and what their journey will be like. Hopefully it will not end in tragedy since he has a habit of staring death in the face, repeatedly.

 

Quote

“Because dying is the most alive you’ll ever feel.”

- Spencer Dutton

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by SnazzyDaisy

[LoveLeigh]

Spoiler

Is it possible that Spencer is the brother who survives and is the ancestor of John III?That would be some twist. He and Alexandra have incrdible chemistry.

This is speculation, if true I placed it in spoiler tags.

[circumvent]

2 hours ago, LoveLeigh said:

  Hide contents

Is it possible that Spencer is the brother who survives and is the ancestor of John III?That would be some twist. He and Alexandra have incrdible chemistry.

This is speculation, if true I placed it in spoiler tags.

It is not possible if we are to believe what Elsa tells in the first episode

[Haleth]

Yeah, when Jacob was talking about men taking from other men I thought for sure he'd say something about how the white ranchers pushed out the Native inhabitants, but he didn't.  Was the neglect from the writers?  Did they fail to see the irony or was Jacob supposed to be that clueless?  Or was it implied that he was talking about himself and other white ranchers?

I'm enjoying the Africa storyline more than the Montana one.  I agree the actors playing Spencer and Alexandra have some great chemistry.  

We need more Helen Mirren.  Give her something to do, writers!

2 hours ago, circumvent said:

It is not possible if we are to believe what Elsa tells in the first episode

She said only one of the boys saw his children grow up.  She didn't say which one.  The family tree someone put up may be incorrect.

[LoveLeigh]

4 hours ago, circumvent said:

It is not possible if we are to believe what Elsa tells in the first episode

Spoiler

She says only one brother survived but she does not name which brother. 

 

[circumvent]

Elsa says that only one of her brothers survived to see his children grow(n). Since Jack is John's son, all grown up, John is the one who survived.

[blackwing]

On 12/27/2022 at 2:33 AM, SnazzyDaisy said:

I wonder when the 3 main plots will intersect. At what point Spencer will return home?

And how Teonna’s story will fit into all these? The lady who goes to see Superintendent Worth, she must be Teonna’s grandmother, right?

The attraction between Spencer and Alexandra is obvious, unlike the other dull couples - Elsa/Ennis, Elsa/Sam, Kayce/Monica etc.

A must have character in this franchise - a fearless blonde aka Lightning Yellow Hair. In 1923, we get a hopeless romantic ones.

So far, am only interested in Spencer, Alexandra and what their journey will be like. Hopefully it will not end in tragedy since he has a habit of staring death in the face, repeatedly.

My complaint is that I am watching this show to see the further origins of the Dutton family.  So far, there's very little of that.  There's Harrison Ford, who now has had nearly 30 years of being a rancher under his belt, and he's teaching his grandnephew Jack.  I'm puzzled as to why the show has made the choice to have Jack's father John be absent in the first two episodes.  Wouldn't it have made more sense to introduce him along with the rest of the family?  Seems very disjointed.

The storylines don't connect at all, and while I sympathise with Teonna, I'm not sure why we are supposed to care about her.  If she's the ancestor of Thomas Rainwater or Monica Long, then ok, there's the connection, but so far, it's slow going.

I agree that Spencer is the most interesting character to me, but again, he's been in Africa for two episodes.  And from what Elsa says, he doesn't live to see his children grow.  So he dies somewhere along the way.  If he ends up dying young and doesn't figure at all into the Dutton legacy, why are we supposed to want to invest so much time in him?

I wanted to see how the Dutton legacy in Montana developed.  We've gotten absolutely zero context on how the Duttons established themselves.  In 1883, James and Margaret made it to Montana.  In 1893, James dies, but in the flashback scene we saw, we didn't get any indication of how much land he had or what he had established in the past 10 years.  In 1894, Jake and Cara arrive.  Now 29 years later, they have this huge operation.  How?  Where did they get all the cattle?  How did they acquire all their land, was it a grant from the government, did they steal it from the Native Americans, etc.?

Another minor complaint of mine... too many blondes with the exact same curly/wavy trapezoid shaped blonde hair.  Jack's mom (?), Jack's fiance (?), the woman who flirted with Spencer and got mauled to death, this new woman who chased after him.

I loathed Elsa and I can't stand her "ah'm tryin so hahd to sound lahk ah'm from Taxes" accent.  Why did she have to narrate this show?  I would rather have had Helen Mirren narrate the show.  Helen Mirren is one of the greatest living actresses today and she barely has anything to do on this show.  She is being wasted.

 

[Haleth]

4 minutes ago, blackwing said:

loathed Elsa and I can't stand her "ah'm tryin so hahd to sound lahk ah'm from Taxes" accent.

Which is funny since the family was from TN.

I couldn’t care less about the present day Duttons. I find all of them loathsome and quit watching the mothership in the middle of last season. I do love some historical dramas though. Yeah, it would have been interesting to see the early years of James and Margaret in Montana, how they managed to establish a foothold on that land. 

[circumvent]

9 minutes ago, blackwing said:

was it a grant from the government, did they steal it from the Native Americans

Same thing. The government stole from the Native peoples, or allowed anyone to do so.

 

11 minutes ago, blackwing said:

too many blondes with the exact same curly/wavy trapezoid shaped blonde hair.

The shape of the hair is what was going on in the 20's, in the sow is to establish, visually, the era. 

12 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I agree that Spencer is the most interesting character to me, but again, he's been in Africa for two episodes

I don't find him interesting at all. Brooding and pretending to be a wise white man who respects and cares about the locals. Bah! Besides, the whole Africa stuff is a thing of the Disney movies. Nothing about how they showed the animals is true.

 

I agree that there is no back story, maybe they will tell it in flashbacks, which I find annoying. I think that Taylor Sheridan sees himself as the biggest story teller ever, and wants to create a series that tell a whole family saga. He just needs to realize he doesn't have the talent to do that. I don't know if this show will be a mini series - one season - but I have a feeling the holes will remain, or get bigger

[Thalia]

5 hours ago, circumvent said:

Elsa says that only one of her brothers survived to see his children grow(n). Since Jack is John's son, all grown up, John is the one who survived.

There is one other possibility  

Spoiler

If we believe the narration, John Sr. is the child who saw his child(ren) grow as John Jr. is an adult.  It is still possible that Spencer fathered a child or children, with the understanding that he died before those children turned 18.  

 

Never mind.  I'm going to start a speculation, no spoilers topic so we don't have to use spoiler tags. 

I agree with those who say that Spencer's story is what I'm tuning in for right now.   I'm somewhat weary of Duttons who want to hold on to their land, and the mistreatment of the Native Peoples is making me sad.   Spencer makes me a little sad too, but he's also got dreamy blue eyes and I'm shallow.  

3 minutes ago, Thalia said:

There is one other possibility  

  Reveal spoiler

If we believe the narration, John Sr. is the child who saw his child(ren) grow as John Jr. is an adult.  It is still possible that Spencer fathered a child or children, with the understanding that he died before those children turned 18.  

 

Ignore the above.  I'm going to start a speculation, no spoilers topic and move the discussion there so we don't have to use spoiler tags.  I tried to delete it, but I see it is still here. 

I agree with those who say that Spencer's story is what I'm tuning in for right now.   I'm somewhat weary of Duttons who want to hold on to their land, and the mistreatment of the Native Peoples is making me sad.   Spencer makes me a little sad too, but he's also got dreamy blue eyes and I'm shallow.  

 

[circumvent]

It doesn't really matter, to me, when Spencer dies. It is clear that he didn't survive. The fact that the narration mentions that only one survived, implies that the other one died relatively young. If it is just a red herring, than the writing is even worse than I realized. Why mention something like that if he will live long enough to even have children and see them? Waste of time, imo

[blackwing]

42 minutes ago, circumvent said:

It doesn't really matter, to me, when Spencer dies. It is clear that he didn't survive. The fact that the narration mentions that only one survived, implies that the other one died relatively young. If it is just a red herring, than the writing is even worse than I realized. Why mention something like that if he will live long enough to even have children and see them? Waste of time, imo

I agree that it is a puzzling writing choice to include that line.  Why?  I think it's supposed to make it like Elsa is this all-powerful Dutton spirit goddess, watching over the family from beyond the grave.  She is all-knowing and makes it sound like we the viewers are so lucky that she is narrating the story.  "Oh gentle viewers, I've got the scoop and wouldn't you like to know what it is?  I'll give you a cryptic hint... only one of my father's children lives to see their own children grow.  Don't you wish you knew which one?  I know who it is."

Stupid.  Spencer is about 38 in 1923, and it seems like he is a wandering spirit and determined not to settle down, but now he's going to be tamed by an equally free spirit, and then die?

There seem to be two obvious possibilities right now.  Either 1) Jack is Kevin Costner's grandfather, or 2) Spencer is Kevin Costner's grandfather.  He impregnates whatshername and then dies either in Africa or back home in Montana.  We have never heard about any other Dutton cousins, Kevin Costner John makes it seem like his family is it, and he is desperately trying to hold on to the legacy of his family's land and he's placing his hopes on Kayce because there's nobody else left.

So it seems that only Jack or only Spencer can have a child, but not both.  Until next season brings us some heretofore-unknown Dutton cousins!  It really does seem like Taylor Sheridan is making this crap up as he goes along without sketching out an overarcing Yellowstone-universe plan.

[LoveLeigh]

17 hours ago, circumvent said:

Elsa says that only one of her brothers survived to see his children grow(n). Since Jack is John's son, all grown up, John is the one who survived.

deleted because I am wrong

Edited December 29, 2022 by LoveLeigh

[LoveLeigh]

5 hours ago, blackwing said:

There seem to be two obvious possibilities right now.  Either 1) Jack is Kevin Costner's grandfather, or 2) Spencer is Kevin Costner's grandfather. 

Jack is Kevin Costner's grandfather... but Jack is either the son of JohnII or Spencer, which would make Spencer Kevin Costner's great grandfather. 

 

ETA: I am all wrong on this. Emma is alive and Jack is about to be married. Spencer has a concurrent life so he cannot be Jack's father. Jack is grown when Spencer is in Africa. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by LoveLeigh

[Sunnykm]

gahhhhhh!  It should not need to be this confusing to follow this story

[circumvent]

11 hours ago, blackwing said:

There seem to be two obvious possibilities right now.  Either 1) Jack is Kevin Costner's grandfather, or 2) Spencer is Kevin Costner's grandfather.

Spencer as KC grandfather is not possible because Elsa said only one of her brothers survived to see his child(ren) grown. Her brothers are John and Spencer. John has seen his child grown. Of the three children in 1883, only John survives

[voiceover]

That speech Harrison delivered at the campfire is the grandson of “Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other; I've seen a lot of strange stuff.”

[Haleth]

Oops.  Wrong thread.  Sorry!

Edited January 2, 2023 by Haleth

[LadyIrony]

On 12/26/2022 at 8:10 AM, circumvent said:

The way this show butchered Africa is madding. There is no such thing as "breeding duo". Leopards don't hunt in pairs, they are solitary animals. Besides, one shot would be more than enough to scare them miles away. They wouldn't be ambushing a human being like that. Who is writing this crap? Now, if they are going to show people killing hyenas, I will suspend disbelief and enjoy myself. I hate them. 

More crap: the residential school girls all have long hair, a no-no for the catholics. They are also using their idigenous names. Another no-no. The nuns would give them "proper" names and refer to them by those names. Teonna would be dead by now, no second chances. They could at least have written a side story where another girl was killed, disappeared, that would at least make a little sense and raise more fear on the girls, I would be willing go with the story that a rebel could have survived the torture.

I am also annoyed by the lack of historical context and the victimization of the "Indians". I am reading a book that is about the real story of Thanksgiving, from before the Mayflower arrived, the relationships developed and how they turned on what happened. It is researched and footnoted. The show paints natives as passive, accepting of the advances of the white people. I know it was 300 years after the Mayflower, in 1923 there was government involvement, Reservations (that were not respected) but they would not accept the sheep and thank the white men. They would accept the sheep and make a comment about how the white man destroyed their land, that before they came they had the food they needed and the animals they killed to eat (cows are not indigenous to this continent). There is so much more they could do with teh story of colonization instead of having Jacob unironically preach about how men are their worse enemy because men will take all they have, "their" land. 

But obviously, I expect too much. This is a white people's story, white centered and whitewashed. 

Or is it more a case of Woke Washing where the Indians are as usual being portrayed as salt of the Earth types who are too passive and humble to raise their fists in anger? 

It's ironic because one of the reasons it was easy to defeat the Native Americans was due to the tribes warring against each other. Thus they were already divided before European settlement and the tribes even took sides with different European groups because they thought it would benefit their own tribe in defeating their opposing tribes. 

That said this show is a fantasy as is Yellowstone and 1883 which featured the unbelievable Prairie Barbie herself Elsa. It's no more realistic than a recent TV show based around Vikings I watched which featured a black woman as a Viking Queen! 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by LadyIrony

[BlueHawk]

I love and adore (and ceaselessly covet!) the wonderful fabrics and style of classy fancy dresses of the era. I'd be thrilled if the ceaseless shilling of the endless works of Mr. Sheridan were to be replaced by scene after scene of sumptuous period fashions. Then back to the story.

[circumvent]

5 hours ago, LadyIrony said:

Or is it more a case of Woke Washing where the Indians are as usual being portrayed as salt of the Earth types who are too passive and humble to raise their fists in anger? 

I don't really understand what woke washing means because everything that is about reparations and justice all of a sudden became a collective "woke" so I steer away from such terms. 

You are correct that there was a lot of discord and wars broke up often between tribes in the pre-colonial Turtle Island. That does not mean that the English and other europeans didn't abuse the open hand the natives offered. They were not innocent victims and they miscalculated how evil the white people were. That's why I also pointed out that TV could show the resentment and the disputes where the natives also killed white people (which I celebrate)

Those shows are entertainment but when it is too inaccurate it only feeds on the already immense collective American ignorance. Some might think this is just fine, no harm is done, but the only ones being entertained are the white colonist mentality crew. Talk to indigenous peoples who still practice their culture and you will realize, for example, how the celebration of Thanksgiving is a day of mourning for them (one needs to know how the original celebration happened. Suffice to say that it was after a battle where one of the loudest voice against the collaborations between Colonists, Indigenous Peoples was killed and his body dismembered and the parts spread around the white rules in the area - Eastern MA).  But I guess criticizing Thanksgiving would fall into what you call "woke". I prefer to listen to people whose trauma is part of their legacy - and that's is not "wokeness" it is  a documented sociological, psychological and medical fact.

If someone is going to invest so much on a popular show, it doesn't take too much energy to hire a research to at least make the entertainment real, unique, instead of spreading the same old myths that make the white (American) people at ease and not thinking, at all, about anything that involves oppression of other humans. Well, it is not the same for all of us. Entertain yourself, ignore history. That's something we Americans do really, really well.

[BlueHawk]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:39 PM, circumvent said:

It doesn't really matter, to me, when Spencer dies. It is clear that he didn't survive. The fact that the narration mentions that only one survived, implies that the other one died relatively young. If it is just a red herring, than the writing is even worse than I realized. Why mention something like that if he will live long enough to even have children and see them? Waste of time, imo

 As I recall she  said only one of James & Margaret's sons would survive to see his children grown.    She didn't say which  one.  And the implication is not that he died w/o children only that he died before they were adults (or mostly grown up)

  Wonder how hard it was to convince Elsa to give up a few moments of riding the sunrise plains with Sam in order to provide narration...🤔 

 Surely there was someone around to inform Isabel May to stop with straining her voice into an unnatural sounding register ? Also that the accent is uneven to the point she sometimes sounds as tho' she momentarily forgot she was trying for some type of southern . Guess ol' Taylor & gang just figgered she's so purty it jes plain don't matter how she sounds 🙊💘

Edited January 3, 2023 by BlueHawk
Forgot stuff...

[circumvent]

26 minutes ago, BlueHawk said:

As I recall she  said only one of James & Margaret's sons would survive to see his children grown.    She didn't say which  one.  And the implication is not that he died w/o children only that he died before they were adults (or mostly grown up)

That's right. The way the third episode ended, plus an article that was posted somewhere here make me think that Spencer will have a child, then die, and that child will be raised, maybe, by Jack - the article says that he will not have any offspring. It is too convoluted and the article may untrue, and probably that's by design, to keep people talking about it. It is working.

[Affogato]

On 1/2/2023 at 11:45 PM, LadyIrony said:

Or is it more a case of Woke Washing where the Indians are as usual being portrayed as salt of the Earth types who are too passive and humble to raise their fists in anger? 

It's ironic because one of the reasons it was easy to defeat the Native Americans was due to the tribes warring against each other. Thus they were already divided before European settlement and the tribes even took sides with different European groups because they thought it would benefit their own tribe in defeating their opposing tribes. 

That said this show is a fantasy as is Yellowstone and 1883 which featured the unbelievable Prairie Barbie herself Elsa. It's no more realistic than a recent TV show based around Vikings I watched which featured a black woman as a Viking Queen! 

 

the scandinavians did  have children with all kinds of people, brought them home and continued to have children. Some very white scandinavians have black features. My fathers grandmother, for example. She was a racist and it pissed her off. Whole family made fun of her. 

[pasdetrois]

Modern Native Americans prefer that they not be described in monolithic ways. Their genesis stories and histories are varied and complex. Some fought the US government's encroachment fiercely (e.g., the Seminole wars), some thought that conciliation and cooperation would help preserve their existence. The US government, through almost a dozen different policy eras over 150 years, systematically dismantled traditional tribal communities and forced them to "become white." (And stole their land, which contained valuable resources.) The founder of the boarding school policy said "To save the man we must kill the Indian."

It would absolutely be true that some Indians would be passive in 1923, and also gratefully accept any resources, such as sheep. When a people are beaten down - butchered, starved, frozen, diseased, ripped from their parents' arms - the passivity is a survival mechanism and learned behavior. In more modern times, Native Americans began to rise up in the 1960s (American Indian Movement) and since then have steadily demanded that their treaties and other rights be honored. But even now many express contempt and even fear of the US government. A young tribal member who has worked for me refuses to travel to DC.

I agree that there were errors in the representation of the boarding school on the show. And I don't appreciate the girls being shown in baths or in skimpy night clothes.

Quote

A must have character in this franchise - a fearless blonde aka Lightning Yellow Hair. In 1923, we get a hopeless romantic ones.

Complete with impractical frilly dresses, curls, flouncing, and so on. My blonde Scandinavian ancestors are no doubt rolling in their northern Plains graves. 

But this is Sheridan, after all.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by pasdetrois

[lazylou]

The writing on this series, as in Yellowstone, is really terrible.  No attention has been paid to any sort of historic accuracy. No research has been done regarding actual laws in either historic or, in Yellowstone, present day Montana, though sometimes errors have been corrected when it suited new plot complications.  

it is unique to this western that the sheep herders have been presented as villains, the villainous big ranchers have become the heroes, women have lost their civil rights (hey! the western states gave women rights to vote, inherit, etc., long before 1923).  The Crow/ Northern Cheyenne reservation has been moved to west, the Catholic Church has replaced the US government as the evil school master, Periods of history seem to have been collapsed together to suit the plot.

Meanwhile, the acting, photography, music, etc., is all quite good.  Sad, I think.  Just do not assume that anything happening on these shows reflects reality, and all is well.

[millennium]

I consider myself fortunate to have seen not a single episode of Yellowstone.  I can enjoy this series for what it is without the burden of trying to solve genealogical equations based on the future.

That said, I don't like the torture porn at the Indian school.