Thank you SO much, Mark E. (MEH) Hall.
Edgar Rice Burroughs was likewise sympathetic with the Apaches and protrayed them as rounded human beings, not movie stereotypes. This was probably because during his cavalry years in Arizona he got to know genuine Apaches and saw what they really were. He didn't downplay their cruelty, but he depicted them as people loving and humorous with their own families and bands, but fierce when dealing with their enemies. They were such a tiny group that this was the only way they could retain their independence, and Burroughs recognized that.
I guess at this stage I would have to ask, who and what is your benchmark for 'enlightened'.
I mean enlightened compared to the other pulp writers, or Kroeber or Gifford or Lowie or even Llewllyn Loud for example?
Your question raises the basic
thinkers/intellectuals of an earlier era be held to account for "inaccurate" views?
By that, I mean: Should Aristotle be thrown out because he thought comets/meteors were "atmospheric phenomena"? Should Isaac Newton be ignored because he believed in astrology?
There seems to be a disconnect regarding "errors" in sociology (the least
exact of "sciences") and physics. Galileo didn't have to
be 100% right. Apparently, Burroughs (and Howard) did
Seems unfair. Especially since the two were just writers. Galileo and Newton were avowed scientists.