The dominant interpretation of the Battle of Little Bighorn prior to the 1950’s was looking at this monument as the perspective of the orthodox patriot. “When I first went to work at what was then Custer battlefield in 1947 at the age of seventeen. . . The Indians were cardboard cutouts, impersonal foils for celebrating the heroism of Custer and his troopers.” (Utley 72). The orthodox patriot honored General George Armstrong Custer, not because of racism, but because the orthodox patriot views American history on a positive note in comparison to the Native Americans who know about the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. “The War Department. . .was proud of the preservation of the battlefield and the establishment of the cemetery which …show more content…
Robert Utley, author of the article “Whose Shrine Is It?” and former Chief Historian of the National Park Service, stated “ Only super-patriots oppose an Indian memorial, in the belief that it somehow dilutes the heroic image of Custer on the hilltop” (74). He stated this in 1992, in comparison with what the opinion of orthodox patriotism was before the 1950’s, orthodox patriotism has had quite a change. Although the term orthodox patriotism has changed, it has adopted a new argument- political correctness. A Special to The New York Times has an article named “Conflict Emerges Over Custer Park” published in 1991. The NYT article refers to the controversy about renaming the memorial and building a shrine commemorating the death of Native Americans in the Battle of Little Bighorn. “Senator Malcom Wallop, Republican of Wyoming, became an outspoken opponent of the name change, calling the proposal ‘a prime example of political correctness’ and an act of ‘revisionism’” (NYT 37) It seems that ideas such as westward expansion and imperialism have taken a negative toll after the 1960’s, but yet defenders of colonialist/imperialist history find some type of way to defend it. Political correctness is the orthodox patriotism of the post …show more content…
Beveridge would have supported the Battle of Little Bighorn interpretation that was prior to the 1950’s. In his first session of the 56th congress congressional records “In Support of an American Empire,” Beveridge states “We must never forget that dealing with the Filipinos we deal with children. . . must be written in every line of Philippine legislation. . .” (Beveridge 2). At the time Beveridge was enacting in overseas expansion, living up to the term “white man’s burden.” Beveridge was trying to convince congress that taking care of an uncivilized people by making them assimilate to American ideology by instituting a democracy. “The Declaration of Independence does not forbid us to do our part in the regeneration of the world. . .” (Beveridge 2). Of course what he states finds more justification on imperialism, something Anglo Americans would agree with in relation to the Battle of Little Bighorn, which just reinforces why it is more likely that Beveridge would support the interpretation before the 1950’s. Although the article is referring to imperialism and not westward expansion, it is easy to imply that Beveridge would have been supportive of the interpretation of the Battle of Little Bighorn prior to the 1950’s. The reasoning behind such a claim is that much like how Beveridge believed the Filipinos were children and needed the help to live properly and assimilate into a civilized culture, Americans believed that Native
The Misplaced Massacre by Ari Kelman is a historical reconstruction of the events that took place during the Sand Creek Massacre on November 29, 1864.To Kelman the history of this event I important because it is the main cause of the culture war, as it caused in her words “participants in the sand creek memorialization project had incommensurable goals: national unity versus local autonomy, verses tribal sovereignty” this in Kelman’s mind caused the feelings over the massacre made history on the events heavily skewed into one of these three categories. As the united states government have a political view of being “nations of nations” while the residents of the Kiowa Valley have a political view based on the interests of the local communities
In “Charlene Teters (Spokane) Asks ‘Whose History Do We Celebrate?’ 1998” the main author is Charlene Teters. The authors main purpose in writing this article is to raise awareness on the lack of education of Native American history and gives examples from his past. The article is written in the being of the year 1998 and is dated due to the anonymous letter being quoted at the beginning. The events taken place in New Mexico is what brought Charlene Teters attention to writing this article. Charlene Teters writes, “One of many brutal truths selectively omitted from most history books is this: in 1599, Oñate attacked Acoma Pueblo in retaliation for the death of his nephew, ordering that the right feet of all men in the pueblo above the age of 25 be chopped off” (492).
It wasn 't fair to the Indians that they were always getting the short end of the stick and never being accepted for who they were. The Native
Custer’s Fall, A book about the fall of Custer and his men told from the Native American side of the story, both compared and contrasted to my previous book Cavalier In Buckskin, which is told more from the American military side of the story. Mainly how dramatically different General Custer was portrayed among the whites and the Native Americans. Both of these stories compared and contrasted how General Custer was on the battlefield dramatically portrayed differently from whites to the Natives. Before the Wars against the Natives began little to no Native Americans even knew who George Armstrong Custer was. On the other hand practically every American knew who the General was, a graduate from West Point and decorated Civil War Veteran.
“Custer's Last Stand” was a victory for the Indian people, but as a result of their win, they brought a lot of attention to themselves which angered the American people. As a result, the US government treated the Native Americans more hostile, allowing John Gibbons to go and attack the Nez Perce Indians, didn’t follow through with their agreements dealing with land and took land away, and kept expanding westward while continuing to grow America East to West. Directly after new got out that the Indians had not only won the battle, but had slaughtered the American army, John Gibbons rounded up every available man and went after the Nez Perce Indians, whom he thought were the easiest and head of attack. Many innocent woman and children died on
This idea closely resembles Kearin’s prime example in her article entitled The Many Lives of Chief Kisco. Kearin uses the statue, colloquially named Chief Kisco, as evidence of how sculpture can be produced for one purpose but come to mean something else entirely. According to Kearin, Chief Kisco was originally “constructed as an emblem of the temperance movement”, but shifted to become “the emblem of a white nativist movement” (48, 42). This example of “a Native American figure as the emissary of an inherently middle-class, Protestant, Euro-American, and overwhelmingly white message” highlights the way that the art form of sculpture has been used to alter one’s meaning to conform to contemporary society’s way of thinking. (49) Savage and Kearin both explored the idea that commemorative sculpture was used as a vessel for Americans to fill with their own notion of what it means to be American, whether white versus black, white versus native americans, or an American who has been in America for
On the 25th of June 1876 on the ‘greasy’ grass of Dakota the Battle of the Little Big Horn occurred. Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. Determined to resist the efforts of the U.S Army to force them onto reservations, Indians under the leadership of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse wipe out Lieutenant Colonel George Custer and much of his 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. This essay with try to determine why the U.S. Army lost this, every so important battle against the Sioux.
Filipinos were one such race that Beveridge believed needed others to govern them, which increased his support of imperialism. Beveridge most likely directed his speech towards white American men. In the source, Beveridge spoke of a vote, so he would have directed his speech to people who could make a difference with the vote. In order to sway his audience, Beveridge gave them a sense of pride in their race and their country.
Battle of Little Big Horn Have you ever wondered what the cause of the Battle of the Little Big Horn was? Or when it took place? What about the after effects of the battle? Here is some more in-depth research on the Battle of Little Big Horn. It was late 1875, when Sioux and Cheyenne Indian tribes left their reservations.
The second difference that is clearly evident is the U.S. Calvary underestimated the multiple tribe’s courage to stay and fight. Major Reno’s battalion advanced first heading down the Little Bighorn and came across a natural a ford to cross the river. On this account, the Sioux could not see past the creek, and they believed the soldiers were out of cartridges. The major difference in these two accounts in the Battle of Little Bighorn is that the Sioux Nation did not believe they had committed any crimes by leaving the
Scribbles on Scrap: A Mission Command Analysis of the Battle of the Little Bighorn The massacre at the Little Bighorn in 1876 was one of the most recognizable battles in American history. The defeat of the 7th Cavalry Regiment and the slaughter of 268 Soldiers by the Sioux serves as an enduring subject of study for contemporary military professionals. The basic modus operandi for command principles in the times of the Indian Wars loosely mirrors the mission command philosophy of today; however, if we still lay credence to the efficacy of the mission command philosophy, how was it that a conventional force under the direction of a battle proven leader was defeated by an irregular enemy? In the end, Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer’s complacent
In the news today, a continual debate can be found about the significance of Confederate monuments and if they should remain or be removed. Confederate monuments that have been erected throughout the U.S. should be kept because of the preservation of America’s history. For instance, in the article, The Unbearable Lightness of Confederate-Statue Removal, the author lists how slaveholder monuments aren’t the only statues being vandalized, but the Lincoln Memorial and Mount Rushmore are other symbols of U.S. history that some believe need to “blow up” (Murdock). Every historical symbol can have both people who appreciate it and who oppose it. That doesn’t mean that we should tear down all symbols, but
The defense of Chief Red Jacket gave to his religion is a wonderful piece of history that does not get enough credit. Chief Red Jacket’s speech illuminates the thoughts of the Native Americans in that specific era. Today, the Native Americans and other minorities in the United States of America have been having more recognition. One of the actions that have been a little unpopular in US History is the religious
Beveridge believe that we should just be able to do what other country can do, while Obama focuses on what would be best for the country; basically staying out of wars when they can be avoidable. Beveridge’s response to why we should imperialize other countries is not necessarily how it’s beneficial to our country, but more of its “fair” and we’d be more “equal” to other countries since their governing foreign countries as well. He believes that since we can do it, we should just expand our territory. He thinks that Americans should continue with the march toward commercial supremacy of the World, not even considering any of the outcomes. His strong nationalism is only focusing about the power America can get by doing what every other country may be doing, imperializing.
In Life Among the Piutes, sarah winnemucca hopkins describes what happens when soldiers came to their reservation based off what white settlers tell the government. The most shocking instance of this happened when Winnemucca encountered a group of soldier who told her the white settlers accused the natives of stealing cattle, “the soldiers rode up to their [meaning the Piute’s] encampment and fired into it, and killed almost all the people that were there… after the soldiers had killed but all bur some little children and babies… the soldiers took them too… and set the camp on fire and threw them into the flames to see them burned alive”(78). This is an abhorrent act that is unthinkable in a functioning society. The natives had done nothing but want to hold some shred of land from the settlers who had taken everything from them and are exterminated like vermin. This was something that stayed hidden from many white settlers because of its barbarism and by exposing it Winnemucca truly educates the reader, past and present, on how natives are