{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0401854714064915, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01622874806800618, 'mean_word_length': 5.540404040404041, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Stealing the Gila: The Pima Agricultural Economy and Water Deprivation, 1848-1921 (review)

underbelly of territorial history” (xiv). Captive Arizona also contains softness. The contention that captivity in Arizona was “racially and culturally distinct” (xiii) is not substantiated and could have benefited from at least passing comparison with studies bearing on other parts of the region. It is also not clear from the text that white males “perceived the ability to protect their women and children from Native American males as a proof of their ‘manifest destiny’ to possess indigenous land” (2). The book’s story demands telling. Its significance need not be inflated. Of less consequence are misspellings (Sylvester Mowry is rendered “Mowery” and James Carleton becomes “Carlton”), the wrong date for the Arizona Territory’s organic act (1863, not 1861),and reference to territorial legislatures as “congresses.” This superbly researched work, reflective of the Arizona Historical Society’s documentary wealth, inexplicably fails to acknowledge, in both notes and bibliography, the pertinent scholarship of Carl Coke Rister and Gary Clayton Anderson and, most puzzlingly, The Apache Diaries (2000) of Grenville and Neil Goodwin. Nevertheless, Captive Arizona fits nicely in their company.