The Buffalo Are Extinct.

This week in class he learned about the buffalo. The buffalo that used to roam back then are extinct. The buffalo that we have today, are of mixed type of bison. The stories that I heard in history classes was that the Calvary was shooting them left and right. Their reasoning was, "To get rid of the Indian, Shoot the buffalo. Buffalo being the main food and clothing source of the Native American.
Once in awhile I do get ill and have to go to the "walk in clinic" here in Lawrence. I walk inside my doctors office and hanging on the wall is a piece of artwork. This piece of artwork is a drawing of the 1850's era. It shows 3 cowboy men riding on a train through the wide open area of the Plains. They are sticking their heads out of the window, and their having a 'high ol' time', they have on their cowboy hats and in their hands are rifles. While the train is in motion their shooting at these buffalo and killing them. In the background you can see other buffalo lying dead in the wake of their path. This is pretty sad.
Being Native American and knowing what this picture "represents", I am offended and possibly others might be as well. I always intended to write a letter to the office manager and explain that this "picture" is offensive to some of their customers.
This is an example that shows the lack of knowledge that society has of American Indian history.

Gold Rush

When thinking back to any class I have taken in my entire life, I don't remember learning anything about the Gold Rush. Whatever I did learn about the Gold Rush but forgot most likely dealt with basics such as what the Gold Rush was and when it occurred. Learning about the impact that the Gold Rush had on the West Coast, the Pacific Northwest, Colorado, and in the Black Hills just makes me sick. So far in this class, this was probably the most interesting thing that I have learned. The impact that the Gold Rush had on natives throughout the country is completely surprising.
The Gold Rush that occurred in Pikes Peak, Colorado which effected the relationships between the United States and Native Americans is another blemish on United States history that will never be forgotten. The massacre that occurred at Sand Creek by Shippington and other U.S. soldiers led to the bad blood between the U.S. and Native Americans. I was surprised that it took this long before Native Americans got the point that the U.S. could not be trusted, but I was glad that they finally came to that conclusion. Whenever I heard that this was the breaking point, I felt happy. I kept wondering when that point was going to come.

Oregon Trail: World's Greatest Game?

Probably the most interesting thing I have learned in this class, is that so much of what I know about native American history is complete bunk! One such example is the video game "Oregon Trail" which we all played in computer class in second grade. The Indians would attack, and if you were lucky, they would kill your brother (if you were unlucky, you had to hope he would fall under the wagon wheel, or succumb to the oh-so classic "You have died of Dysentery"). This is a horrible misconception. Fewer than 350 white settlers were killed while crossing Native lands during the time, and Indians were much more frequently aides than enemies.
Another great example is Custer's Last Stand, or more appropriately, the battle of Little Big Horn. In popular knowledge, poor Custer was nobly doing his duty to his country, when he was viciously attacked by savages! But have no fear, he died with honor, defending his country to the end. This misnomer was just reaffirmed in an E-mail I received last week. Horrible! In reality, Custer attacked during a ceremony and hoped to slaughter an unsuspecting village. Fortunately, justice was on the side of the Lakotas, and they routed him. There is a super neato photo essay in the book on 357 about this!
How did these misnomers begin and why are they so heavily propagated despite their blatant contradiction of historical evidence? I would say the problem originates with our inherently racist society and our 'othering' of Native peoples. Of course Hollywood can take some blame, but they cannot force us to devour films which contradict our morals. No matter how disgraceful, any successful Hollywood endeavor must reflect, on some level, the moral constitution of society. This tells me our society is pretty weak sauce :(

Media Hype: Continuation on Gold Frenzy

A very interesting point was mentioned about all the Gold Rushes and the amount of death that occurred because of this dash for riches. Another point I want to bring to the table is that of media hype and how it has changed little through out time. The news papers of the 19th century were saying that the gold was leaking out of the ground in the Black Hills, and that you could pick it like a crop and so on... Has our media not changed, and why do we still trust so blindly what the media says. Human nature has a tendency to blow things up and make things/situations seem better than they really are.
I thought this was an interesting tid-bit that would spur some good thinking, and this also goes to show that society rarely learns from its mistakes.

Plains Peoples

I thought it was interesting hearing about the plains peoples this week. I have heard the term "Sioux" used before to describe the plains Indians, but I didn't realize that there are actually many different people included in the term and is actually a bit of a misnomer.
I also thought that the massacre at of Black Kettle's Cheyenne by the US Army was interesting because I think it highlights the mistrust that the Indians must have felt toward the Americans. After the massacre many of the Indians had to figure that they could never enter into treaties with the Americans and expect them to keep their word.

500 Nations

The most interesting discussions this week for me came from the 500 Nations documentary that we watched during Monday's class. This was very disturbing to me in many ways, especially the opinion I had of white Americans of European descent after leaving the class. Anyway, the stories of Black Kettle and White Antelope were very distressing and also the leader of the Kiowa resistance (I don't remember his name, does anyone else?) The pictures were very haunting, all of them have such sad eyes. I cannot help but wonder what made this alright to the Americans that engaged in activities such as these, especially the buffalo hunters that participated in the murder of buffalo to kill off a people's food source? I would be very interested in watching the whole documentary.
I also began to wonder about the reservation concept and wish that those were explained more in depth.

Gold Frenzy

Something in this weeks lectures that I thought was interesting was how gold kept being mentioned as a main cause for alot of the violence that existed between indians and white settlers. It seemed like every time a conflict arose between indians and whites it was because white settlers had found gold on indian lands. This just shows how much of an impact socio-economics had on the indian wars of the late 19th century. It also made me wonder if there was any point when the indians became aware of just how much power gold had in white society. Perhaps when they found this out they could have used it as leverage in alot of thier dealings with whites. But, from what we have seen, the whites probably would have been more akin to just kill or displace the indians when they found out about the gold they had available to them. Im sure that the indians did not see as much value in gold as whites, as thier societies were not nearly as materialistic as white societies at the same time.

Western Questions

As we were talking about the Indians on the Plains and in the west, I began to wonder whether these people heard of the coming of the white man from their neighbors to the east. I wonder if they knew about all the broken treaties and the removal of the Indians in the east. It seems like they would have known when other tribes started to show up, but what about those like the sioux. If I understand correctly, there wasn't alot of removal to their territory. So, how did they learn about what was happening in the east. Did they learn about the wars in the east through trading partners and what was their reaction to the news. What were the plains Indians doing during the Revolutionary War? They seemed to be out of the action, but they had to have heard of what was happening. I also wonder if what they heard about the white man impacted how they would deal with him in the future. Did the plains Indians hold out so long because they heard rumors of broken treaties and poor treatment by the settlers, which caused them to be weary of entering in agreements with them? Did this also cause them to use more violent means of resistance? I'm sure we discussed the answers to many of these questions, but I was ready for the weekend and could have missed them. I think we often overlook these people because we are focused on big happenings like the Revolutionary War, but I am curious what the plains Indians were doing while the eastern part of the U.S. was in conflict.

Custer

So I would really like to know what the true story of General Custer and Little Big Horn is. In the video we watched on Monday it described the fight as a “legit” battle, with Custer simply attacking the Indians, the Indians fighting back and winning. But then I have seen and read several other variations on the event. One is that Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse had actually set up a trap for Custer, lured him in and wiped him out. Another is that it was Custer who took the Indians completely by surprise and it was only because he was so outnumbered that he lost. And then there is the different ideas about Custer’s frame of mind. Was he overconfident? Simply unlucky? There is one story that says he was warned by his Indian scouts that he should not attack but did it anyway-- this one goes with the trap story. What is the real story? I also wonder if the reason for all these different versions is because of the different perspectives telling the story. Obviously, the white versus Indian versions I would bet are pretty different. Also the video said that it was just days after the event that newspapers across the country were printing the story. I sort of get the feeling that many of these papers were writing from their imagination than from real sources or fact. How many of the stories we know today were simply made up in the papers? Likewise, how much fact has been stretched or altered in the last 100+ years?

Horses as a contribution to the demise?

As usual, a misconception about indigenous peoples is abolished after another week of class. I particularly enjoyed the presentation on the history of the horse and how it affected life for plainspeople. I had initially assumed that Indians acquired horses over time and merely used them to travel across the plains. I didn't realize that horses created such a burden for tribes, especially those in the northern plains regions. I also had never heard of the connection between horses and bison depletion. It seems that overhunting wasn't the only culprit in the decreased bison population; horses' huge appetites contributed to the starving bison.
The violence among tribes over possession of the horses was also a new concept to me. I learned about the raiding of horses, but I never realized they caused such immense tension between tribes and within tribes as well.
I suppose horses are yet another European commodity that helped and hurt indigenous peoples.

Trades and Women

Learning about the Comanche trade centers this week was some of the more interesting information that I hadn't previously known. When we were studying the early European contact with natives and the various goods which were exchanged between the groups, I really got a good sense of how trade relations went near the East coast, but was still lost as how the great plains tribes where able to thrive off of trade. I didn't know about the expansive trade network that the Comanches had set up nor did I know that lots of their goods that they had for trade were acquired by raids. With the addition of the variety of environments that they Comanches dominated and the already important cultural significance of trading to them, it doesn't surprise me that they were able to set up one of the most diverse trading networks in the west. This week's class also enlightened me on the impact of the horse on the Native populations. I found the part of the presentation which told how a man would compare to other men by the amount of horses he owned most interesting, although learning more about the impacts of horses and the different tribes that were able to procure them was also good. There are many different aspects to life in the West which both Natives and Europeans had to adapt too which makes studying this time period very worthwhile.

Small but powerful

I was surprised this week at the amount of largescale conflict between the plains indians and the government. Obviously I knew that there had been conflicts but the amount of different conflicts and the degree to which they rose surprised me. I supposed I assumed that the smaller bands or groups would submit themselves to the will of the government more easily than the larger groups of the East. Of course both of them fought for the most part but when Tai showed the map with all the "wars" and "massacres" in the Midwest there were a lot more than I expected. This actually brings me to my question for the week which is a bit unrelated to the actual topics of the class and more on the topic of the meanings of words. The words used to describe the different conflicts such as massacre and war, I'm wondering how you define one from the other. Is it loss of life on one side or the other? I'm also questioning how the words came to be used. Were they simply propanganda for one side or the other to express their beliefs and passions? Who gets to decide whether something is a massacre, war or some other type of conflict and are these words biased in themselves one way or the other?

more misconceptions

It seems like every week my previous views about Native American culture are changed and I'm always amazed that I never learned about these topics before this class. This week the decline of the buffalo and its link with micro-riverine environments. It makes perfect sense that the main reason for the decline of buffalo was an overuse of a natural resource, such as grazing areas but I was always under the impression the decline of buffalo was only due to over hunting. I guess thats what happens when we take Kevin Costner and Hollywood's view of history as fact. 

Another topic that was new to me was the large trading systems created by the Comanche. I find it very interesting how the Comanche trade systems evolved and how they flourished for so long yet most people have no idea these trade systems existed. 

horses

As someone who learned to ride as a toddler, I am interested in how the horses played a role in Indian culture. I never stopped to think how the horses would eat the same grass as the buffalo, and would potentially eat all of their food source. But I do have one problem with something mentioned in the article today about the horses. Chase said horses ate the bark off the trees, as part of harming the environment and eating food sources of the buffalo. Horses generally don't eat bark off of trees, unless they are really hungry or there is something wrong with them. I have seen horses do it, but it's not normal. So for that to be used as something the horses did doesn't seem quite right to me.
And we also know and learned about the misconceptions that movies and tv played with the image of the "savage" Indian attacking wagon trains. I remember reading in history books how wagons would circle, and now it seems it all came from tv. But my new question is in the movies, you used to see the Indians riding paint or pinto ponies. As a kid, my friends used to ride paint horses, and I remember the horses names as Apache, Chief, and Comanche. My own horse was named Cherokee (but my uncle was part cherokee.) Is that another myth that was perpetuated by the movies or tv, or was there a particular horse that became popular with the Indians? I can see the latter being true, because there are different types of horses for different types of labor.

an interesting twist to the story

I also thought the presentations this week were particularly interesting. We have always learned about how the Europeans came in, decided where they wanted to settle, and forced the Natives off of the land that they wanted. I have really always thought, I guess rather ignorantly, that Europeans were the sole factor in the displacement and demise of the tribes all over the United States. Of course, that was a major factor, but it surprised me to learn that Natives also helped themselves become less and less able to thrive off the land. When you read about the numerous successful tribes of long ago, it's somewhat hard to believe that they didn't always think of factors that would better their communities. The ecology factor seems like a much smaller factor in the bigger picture. But, when it came to feeding both bison and horses, both animals having large appetites, the environment just couldn't keep up. This, and other factors, made hardships for the Natives before Europeans ever got to them. Once again, it is an interesting, but unfortunate part of history for me to learn.

Complication of Sioux

This week's presentations were very interesting to me. I learned a lot about things that I wasn't sure about before. For instance, i found in particularly interesting in the presentation about the "Complications of the Sioux" how there were three stages of movement for these people. Similar to before, disease was a huge catalyst in the destruction of many native Americans and their respected tribes. I was not aware of the widespread killing of the buffalo as a means to force the native Americans to make hasty decisions, if they were even able to make a decision, of where to go and who to trust. The biggest thing that shook me the hardest was the amount of disease. I mean everywhere you turn, even when you think that you have traveled far enough away another epidemic storms native American peoples, decimating their numbers to unrecoverable stats.
Another thing that I found interesting was the Laramie Treaty of 1851. Up to this time I had thought that the white man dominated trade and trade relations between him and the native American peoples. However, in this instance, the Sioux dominated the conference by intimidating and attacking other tribes. Although they would eventually fall to the American government, they were able for a long while to sustain their respectable authority over a vast number of people and land.

Exchange with Native Peoples

Today’s article presentations, including my own, alluded to a concept that is often not acknowledged by Indigenous American History. This would be the idea that Native peoples actually sought out the Europeans for trading purposes, and not just the other way around. It is so often said that Europeans ventured out to Native villages in search of goods, but not that Native peoples visited European forts and settlements in search of the very same thing.

Although in these circumstances it may have often seemed as though Native peoples were receiving the better end of the deal, it is important to remember the other implications that contact with Europeans had on them. New forms of disease were brought to Native peoples by European traders and their animals. In some cases, contact with European traders could even worsen relations between societies of Native peoples.

In the end, the trade advantage that Native peoples received from the Europeans was only temporary. Ultimately, Native peoples were removed from their lands as a result of European contact, this of course was to no great advantage of theirs.

Buffaloes

For me, the most interesting topic we covered this week was the decline of the buffaloes in the plains. I had always been under the impression that the decline of the great buffalo herds in the plains was due almost entirely because of commercial hunters. While there is little doubt that this did play a part, it was surprising to learn of the Micro Riverine Environment and the grass cycles. Added to this was the huge population increase of travelers, horses, and oxen in the region.
While the decline of the great buffalo herds is still a tragic event, I guess there is the positive aspect that it was not due entirely to the "sport" and wastefulness of the European settlers in the region. I realize that this can barely be seen as a positive, but it is to me at least better than thinking of mass slaughters of such a valuable resource to the plains.

Trading Posts

I really learned a lot about Plains Indian trading this week. I think, yet again, it is so interesting that no one hears the real successes of these tribes. The fact that the Comanche and Siouan tribes had extensive control and power in their regions is very significant. Especially because their power extended not only over area tribes, but over Europeans as well. We've learned a lot about powerful trade in the East, but most of the time Plains Indians are only seen as mounted warriors rather than efficient and successful traders.

I also thought the role of women in trading was important because they were very involved in the process. It is really sad that intermarriage ended up being much more devastating that it was helpful.

Southwest tribes

After hearing so much about how the Europeans had their way with the tribes in the East and forcing these tribes onto reservations, its really nice to hear about a location where the Europeans could not get the control that they wanted. The Spanish tried for hundreds of years to make the people in this area under their rule. They did this somewhat with trade and with the missionaries but it failed miserably.
The tribes in this area did not change their lifestyle because they did not have to move to learn how to farm. They also were willing to learn from their "enemies" and adopt them into their tribe. This helped with the Spanish because the Spanish made many mistakes. They would "defeat" a band and not make peace with them because they wanted one treaty and this made these "tribes" stronger than were to begin with. The Pueblos made alliances with the Spanish to protect trade and to stop the raids on their villages.