Wounded Knee... 1973

I had heard about the Wounded Knee incident that happened in 1890. As long ago as high school was for me, I learned about it in my U.S. History class. Our teacher liked to show documentaries, most of which, I slept through, but I remember this one vividly. We also revisited it in my American literature class when I took that a few years ago.

When we watched the movie, Reel Injun, a few weeks ago, they talked about Wounded Knee, and I was a little confused because they were speaking of it like it happened only a few decades ago. Then someone who was actually there was speaking on camera. I was like, “That must be the oldest living dude ever!”

But seriously, I had no idea that there was a second incident in 1973. I wanted to look it up to see what it was about and what happened there, and here’s a little of what I found.

This clip, gives a lot of information in a short amount of time (2:53).I apologize, for the audio is somewhat stat-icy. Pay attention!

So according to our fast paced narrator because Indians risked their lives to fight in WWI along side white men, who stole their land and gave them the sloppy seconds to try and farm, they were given American citizenship. The government just proclaimed that they were Americans. Hmm... Kinda makes you wonder at the irony. I mean the Indians where here first, so why would Indians want to become a part of the society who has done them wrong for so long? And I kinda want to know if the Indians had the right to choose to become American citizens. So, I looked up the 1924 Native American Citizenship Act.

Some Indians had married white people giving them citizenship. Some had entered the military, which gave them American citizenship, but most were still considered non-citizens and were even barred from the naturalization process in which immigrants were allowed. So, an Indian who was born on land within the boarders of the United States was not an American Citizen. 

In order to right this wrong, "Congress took what some saw as the final step on June 2, 1924 and granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States." Now, I don't know about you, but that sentence is full of irony. Really? The U.S. government, an organization formed by immigrants about 150 years before, felt obligated to give citizenship to a group of people, or natives, who had lived on U.S. land since the beginning of time simply on the basis that they were born here? Wow. Talk about aristocratic arrogance.  And, "The granting of citizenship was not a response to some universal petition by American Indian groups." Hmm... Sounds like the Congress has something up its sleeve, and its name is "Manipulative Supremacy."

Now, back to to video. Our stoic narrator says, "Because government treaties cannot exist among people of the same country, all the agreements formed between Native Americans and the U.S. government were voided, and their lands began to be seized." But what he doesn't say is the reason why the government wanted the land in the first place. 

In a PBS' Episode on Wounded Knee one Indian says that his people were tired of giving up their land, giving up the Indian way of life. All they wanted was to be left alone and allowed to live the way they wanted, but the U.S. government kept interfering and taking all that they had left.

However, that seemed to be a little to basic of an explanation. In the continuation of watching the PBS piece, I learned that there was a dictator in office on the Pine Ridge Reservation. This man, Dick Wilson, was an Indian, but he was on the government payroll. He helped whom he wanted and shunned those he didn't like. He favored assimilation of the Indians into the white man's way of life, and he persecuted the traditionalists. Wilson had the reservation under his control and the police in his pocket. 

Evidence was gathered against him, miss use of funds, civil rights violations, but none of it helped. The man intimidated witnesses and paid people off, so his impeachment failed. But the traditionalists didn't give up.

Now, this all seems like an internal argument among Indians on a reservation, so why bring in the U.S. Marshal's office? Why did the government get involved?

And that was because the government supported the assimilation of Indians into the white man's way of life, too. It was on the same side as Dick Wilson and his men. There was also some confusion on whether or not there were white hostages being held within the compound, but these white people told the government that they were free to leave whenever they wanted, but they weren't going to because as soon as they did, the Marshals would kill the Indians. Hmm... sound's like good sense to me.

So, Wounded Knee was held by traditionalist Indians in 1973 because they were tired of their way of life being stepped on by non-traditionalists and the U.S. Government. It doesn't seem like much has changed in the last  250 years. The government keeps bullying the Indians and eventually they get tired of it and push back. Are you still in middle school, Congress?

Where are the Cherokee?

So far, our trickster tales have only given us two stories from the Cherokee, so I went looking for more. Being so close to the reservation, I thought it would be nice to read some of the local Indian folklore. I didn’t find a whole lot in written context on the web, but I did find several books that you could buy, and I know there are a few in the UNCA library like, How Rabbit Tricked Otter by Gayle Ross and Marilou Awiakta’s Selu: Seeking the Corn Mother’s Wisdom. 

I scanned through this book, and was enthralled with Awiakta's stories and the modern history of the Cherokee that she recorded as it happened. Awiakta is from east Tennessee, and she has experience with the area and friends and relatives who have told her their stories. One thing that she discussed in her book was the new atomic age. She weaves the Cherokee’s respect and beliefs of Mother Earth, adapting the Cherokee philosophies with our modern way of life. 


Selu is the name of the Corn-Mother. She brought forth out of the corn the humans. Awiakta tells us several creation stories in which she adapted into her poetry, but she also summarizes these stories and includes the Cherokee folklore. 


Without the Earth’s gifts and sustainability, we would be nothing. Without woman man would be selfish and lonely. Without man, woman would have no one to nurture. Without man and woman, the Earth would be overrun with sustenance and life. Each balances the other. The story of Selu, the Corn-Mother, was the first woman. She gave birth to all life. The Creator made her for man who was bored. Something was missing in his life, and he was agitated. So he killed too many of the animals and tore up their dens, and the animals asked the Creator for help. He grew the Corn-Mother, and together, she and the Creator, brought balance back to the world (296-8).

I found Gayle Ross, the author of the other book in our library, How Rabbit Tricked Otter, on YouTube telling a story at Northeastern State University's Founder's Day in March of 2009. The lady knows how to tell a story. (You can find out more about her here.) 


The emotion she brings forth has the feeling of pain and sadness of the Trail of Tears, yet the hope of peace is embedded deep in her voice and the tale. In Awiakta's book she explains that women are nurturers and men are providers. As Ross speaks she reinforces this tradition as she tells about the women on the Trail of Tears who were so sad they lost the capacity to nurture their children. The men prayed to the Creator, asking for help and they said "The strength of the Cherokee nation is the strength of our women." And the Creator gave them a promise. 

In my wanderings around ye ol' internet, I found one site that lists some of the characters from the Cherokee trickster tales. There are also some links to a few of the tales at the bottom of the page, but some of these are out dated and no longer work.


The list shows how the names are pronounced in Cherokee, like  Rabbit (Jisdu, Tsisdu, Chisdu, Jistu, Tsistu, etc.): The pronunciation is similar to jeese-doo. I was disappointed that in our book of  trickster tales, there were only two stories from the Cherokee, but even more disappointing was the fact that Erdoes, and Ortiz didn't use the Cherokee word for rabbit. Oh well, maybe the thought was to keep the stories simple so everyone can enjoy them, or translation just wasn't thought about from whoever (or wherever) their source was for the tales.  Whatever the reason, I believe that something was lost in leaving "Jisdu" out of the story.


Even with all that said, I still have plans for the next time I have a few minutes between classes. I'm going to head up to the third floor of the Ramsey library and look for Jisdu in Gayle Ross' book.  After watching this video and seeing the power she has with words, I'm so looking forward to it.

The Portrayal of Indians in Film

I remember watching old westerns on Saturday afternoons. The exploding guns were a constant background noise at my grandmother’s house. She was enthralled with those old movies. I don’t remember any of her specific opinions, just that she really like to watch westerns. I didn’t. I would watch for about five minutes, get bored, and then find something else to do. My grandfather would be in his wood shop, so I would either go bother him or get on my bike and ride the countryside.

The bad acting and painted sets did nothing to pique my interest. John Wayne was an idiot. I mean seriously. Who talked like that? I thought something was wrong with him, people felt sorry for him, and that’s why they watched.

The portrayal of the Indians also saddened me. A young child was able to tell that something was wrong with how the American film industry depicted a people whom she hardly knew anything about. Growing up in western North Carolina, my family took us children on Saturday trips to Cherokee. Just for something to do, we’d all pile in the car and visit the shops on highway 441. I’d run in and out of the the tipi in front of the big gift shop, and we’d get our picture taken with the big Indian chief. He had dark skin and wore his long feathered headdress. The Indians I meet were a peaceful. They were so very opposite from what I saw on TV, and I thought that there was no way that Indians could be a savage race and kill just to kill. So, to me, those westerns were hard to believe.

It wasn’t until later in life when I learned that the Cherokee never wore long feathered headdresses. They didn't live in tipis either. These people were accommodating what Hollywood had made them out to be so they could pay the bills. So today, I thought I would try out one of those films again. I wanted to look at those films with an adult eye, to see what I thought I saw as a child, but hopefully, be able to better articulate how it made me feel.

I chose The Last of the Mohicans directed by Michael Mann because it’s not really a western, it was filmed in western North Carolina, and all my friends have seen it. It was all the rage when it came out in 1992, and they said, “Daniel Day-Lewis is sooo hot!”

Yeah well, Daniel Day-Lewis didn’t really do it for me. There were about three nice Indians in the film, and the rest were on the wrong side of any law. This is where the stereotype of murdering heathens came in, and that wasn’t the only typecast.

Even though he was raised by Indians, Day-Lewis’ character, Hawkeye, was white, and that automatically made him the hero. His woman played by Madeline Stowe, was the typical strong and resistant lady to her obedient-to-man woman’s role in life. And of course, the whole movie basically revolved around this couple’s love story, but I never really saw their first connection. All of a sudden they were madly in love.

There was a lot of fighting, blood, and things that went boom. Left is a battle scene where the Huron attack the British. Don't watch all of it. You'll get bored. Just watch until Magua rips the Colonel's heart out. That certainly could have been done better because earlier in the film he promises, "When the Gray Hair is dead, Magua will eat his heart."  Yet, we never see it.

The scene makes me ask, what's wrong with this guy? He's ripping a man's heart out and he's so calm about it. He says in monotone, "Just to let you know before I kill you, I will wipe your seed off this planet." And then he holds the guys heart up and looks at it. Dude, scream, holler, take a bite out of it! Do something! You've just killed this guy and then you're going after his daughters. Be the stereotypical Indian that Hollywood has proclaimed you to be.

All in all, the special effects weren’t bad, but they could have been a lot better. And the plot was the love story anyway. It was like the battle scenes were only put in the to make the movie seem more authentic. The majority of the Indians were there to be the bad guys and to stand in the way of the white guy’s happily-ever-after. (The white guy playing and Indian.)

The music was excellent. (Check out the score on the right.) It brought life to an otherwise dull story. The beating of the single drum hinted at war and Indians. It was dramatic. "The Gael," the name of the musical theme, like a good story, started out slow and built to a climax, yet I don't recollect any Indians playing the fiddle... ever. And not to mention that the word "Gael," according to Dictionary.com, is a Celtic term meaning Scottish Celt or Highlander. Hmm... really?

So how does this movie compare to the old westerns my grandmother used to watch? Well, the acting is slightly better but not much. The use of real landscapes was a plus, but the plot was dry. I’m not an expert in history, so I can’t tell you one way or the other if there was any truth to the subplot. Yes, the French Indian war did happen, but that’s about all I can verify for you. Yet, something tells me that’s probably all there is true in this film.