Why does Sharon Pollock focus her play, Walsh, on the little-known white Canadian soldier rather than on the famous American Indian chief, Sitting Bull?

In
Pollock's play Walsh, it is interesting to note the new perspective on the
circumstances surrounding the aftermath of Little Big Horn from a third party that can see the
incident from an unbiased, humanitarian's viewpoint--which would be Walsh's.

The story of Custer's last stand at the place the Sioux called Greasy Grass has been a
part of American history that has long presented Custer as a military heroup until recent
memory. It has only been in the last quarter of a century that questions have been raised as to
the intent ofand tactics practiced byCuster: with his attempt to completely annihilate every
Indian he could find. Many saw his surprise attacks (not only on warriors but also on women and
children) as heroic: those who supported his actions certainly must have believed the
stereotypes of uncivilized savages and/or wanted the Indians' landor both. Attitudes of many
whites were expressed after the murder of Crazy Horse:

There stood a good Indian...a dead Indian.

Walsh
is not such a man. He does not judge a man on the color of his skin, but
upon his character--which Walsh finds supported by that man's behavior. Walsh finds Sitting Bull
to be a man of his word, committed to doing whatever is necessary to make sure his people are
safe and cared for. He follows every rule set forth by the Canadian government.

Walsh is also not a politician. He does not want to take anything from the Sioux. He
simply wants to help. He has no agenda; as seen with the Indians that take Mrs. Anderson's extra
wash tub to make a drum, he has no desire to destroy: he punishes them in a manner befitting the
crime.

In this way we see him as an honorable and sympathetic character who
believes that the Sioux defended themselves (and their women and children) from being murdered,
as Custer's men attacked with an order to take no prisoners. Sitting Bull wonders at one
point:

How does the white man sustain himself beneath the
weight of the blood he has shed?

The treatment of the
Sioux and even the Nez Perces affects Walsh deeply. It takes its toll on him physically,
emotionally and professionally. For just as the Sioux are victims of the American government's
determination to drive them out and/or subjugate or kill the Indians for selfish purposes, the
British leaders in Canada are more concerned with keeping peace with the Americans than to
bother themselves about the fate of Indians that are not native to Canadaeven though they
supported the British during the American Revolution and were promised by George III that they
would always be cared for. Walsh is a victim of the unscrupulous behavior of his
own government.

Walsh becomes a reliable witness, with valuable
and unbiased insights into what really happened at Little Big Horn and, subsequently the harsh
and tragic treatment and life of the Sioux in Canadahe sees into the heart of Sitting Bull, and
finds a caring leader and loving father.

An able and
brilliant people have been crushed, held down, moved from place to place, cheated and lied
to...And now, they hold on here in Canada, the remnants of a proud race, and they ask for some
sort of justice...which is what I thought I swore an oath to serve!

Walsh's perspective helps remove the mythology built up around
Sitting Bullseen all too often in the past as a blood-thirsty savage, and casts a more accurate
image of Custers character, a villain too long revered for what, in truth, amounted to nothing
short of genocide.