Mark E. Randall (AA 73:985) is correct that more than a review is needed for Deloria's Custer Died for Your Sins (although Ortiz' review in the same issue is a perceptive one which does just the sort of job a review should do). His own remarks, however, do not grapple with the issues, unless we want simply to repent upon being accused of our uniform guilt. Let me comment on a few particulars. First, the manifesto is from one horse's mouth (so to speak), as Ortiz (1971:954) so well points out in his review. Deloria's viewpoint, as he himself readily admits (at times), is his way of thinking. He is a spokesman, certainly, for himself and for a few other educated Indians, and he speaks most forcefully to their felt plight (see the viewpoint of another Sioux in Burnette 1971). Second, to the question of theoretical make believe worlds, one might note that all cultures have their own fictive worlds (pure as well as applied), but also that the theories postulated by anthropologists are not all abstract, nor are they all outdated. And our efforts are not all so generalized, inaccurate, and negative as Deloria and Randall would have us admit. I recognize that Deloria might have some contention with certain points of MacGregor's (1946) Warriors Without Weapons, but that is one source among many on the Sioux. On the phenomenon of Indian drinking, I suggest that both Randall and Deloria see such articles as Leacock et al. (1964), Carpenter (1959), Whittaker (1962, 1963), Kuttner and Lorincz (1967), and Dozier (1966)-the last of whom was an Indian as well as a highly respected anthropologist. And workshops, on reservations and off, whether concerned about Indians or any other people or subject, have not always had the most beneficial effects, it is true-but they do help give form to ideas, such as those finally crystallized in Deloria's prose. Perhaps even more important, however, is Randall's unfortunate and apparently illinformed point about native peoples being poked and prodded, spied upon, and portrayed as strange creatures with odd habits put upon the earth to entertain and amuse the rest of Ironically, more than any other group of Whites (or non-Whites), anthropologists have been engaged in the foll wing tangible activities. (1) Anthropologists have emphasized that Indians (and other native and nonnative, Western and non-Western peoples) have viable cultures, with habits and customs no more nor less odd than any of us. See Linton (1937) and Miner (1956) for enlightened manifestations of that fact. (2) Anthropologists have produced written records on tribes which, though not always complete, are generally the primary documents available to us-or to the Indians