Dreamcatchers on the Rearview mirror

“Indian.” The very word conjures up images of bloodthirsty hordes of painted savages whooping and shouting, wantonly killing, raping, looting and destroying outnumbered pioneers on their westward journey, laden with all their worldly treasure. It conjures thoughts of scalped and mutilated bodies. Phrases like the Fetterman Massacre mingle with the Battle of the Little BigHorn. Terror that Tecumseh might have succeeded in uniting the tribes shares the field with numerous other reports of Indian atrocities.
Perhaps the impressions are juxtaposed against the flight of Chief Joseph, the Trail of Tears, or the attack on Black Kettles camp. The picturesque noble warrior riding his pony, head hanging in defeat as his way of life is swept away rounds out the image.
There is only one problem with these stereotypes. They are not even close to being correct. The seizing of the United States was far different from what the average person believes. Certainly there were moments of savagery and destruction but most of the land seized was apart from warfare.
It has long been a battle fought more with pen and paper than guns and knives. For example, take a look at the Fettermen Massacre. This event is heavily coded to show the Indians as a heartless, savage, uncivilized, murderous bunch who mowed down hapless white men in a frenzy of bloodlust.
Only people who have never done even basic research would ever believe this. “Massacre” was applied to it. That word is coded to make people believe innocent and helpless people were killed. Thus, regardless of evidence or reality, the perpetrators must be evil and the victims must be heroic.
In truth, Fettermen was a soldier who had boasted he could ride through the entire Sioux nation with just a handful of soldiers. He was a trained soldier. Think about that for a few seconds. Soldiers are essentially trained for one function. That is to kill. When Fettermen led his roughly 80 men over the hill his intention was to kill the Sioux he hated so much. Instead, he was outwitted, outfought, and his command wiped out.
It was not a completely one-sided conflict. Some Sioux died, although how many is purely a matter of conjecture. It certainly was not a massacre in the sense of overwhelming force being brought to bear against hapless victims.
It is safe to assume the complete loss of a detail was not something the U.S. Army wanted to admit to. The various Native American tribes could not be conquered by mere force of arms. Their way of life was too fluid, it was too easy for them to move from place to place, and their spirit was too strong. It would not be until the land was filled with people that the Native Americans would be fully defeated. Any event that would slow or stop the flow of settlers would postpone that ultimate “victory”.
With that in mind, the U.S. Army could not allow the thought that mere “Indians” were a threat to a trained, armed, and dangerous cavalry patrol to enter the collective consciousness. Instead, they positioned it as a massacre, thus preserving the myth of invincibility, the idea that the cavalry could handle anything the “savages” through at them.
Contrast this with the “heroic” soldiers who ruthlessly slaughtered the women and children of Black Kettles camp. Surrounded, fleeing into the snow clutching such devastating weapons as babies and blankets they were shot down with little or no chance to defend themselves. Yet, curiously, this murder of peaceful innocents entered the annals of history as a battle whereas the killing of soldiers is a massacre.
How is it that when Native Americans kill, even in battle, it is a massacre, but when soldiers kill, even women and children, it is called a battle? The only battle was the court of public opinion. Someone must have thought the average citizen would not stand for the killing of people who were no threat. Why else would it have been positioned this way?
This is far from the only inaccurate stereotype people have developed about Native Americans and the events surrounding the “Westward Movement”. Another instance would be scalping.
It somehow has entered the lexicon of Americana as a savage, uncivilized, and bloodthirsty practice to scalp the enemy. It is then worth noting that many anthropologists, ethnologists, and historians believe scalping was begun by the Spanish conquistadors, not by the Native Americans. Furthermore, many of the plains and desert tribes such as the Apache never practiced scalping. Mountain men, by contrast, were noted for their scalping practices. Furthermore, bounties were offered for the scalps of various tribes at one time or another. Stories of women having their most intimate regions “scalped” and displayed are prevalent in the literature produced by the people living in the conceptualized “Old West”. “Heroes” such as Kit Carson were known to have played catch with these and other anatomical portions.
Why, then, is it the Native Americans who were castigated for the practice of scalping? It is a virtual certainty that few people are aware of the realities of scalping and mutilation. The truth would shatter their preconceptions of what it meant to be Indian.
The picture of the “noble warrior” is just as inaccurate as the idea of the “bloodthirsty savage”. It is another example of how perceptions were structured to make people feel okay about seizing lands from another people. It is an example of how realities were altered to justify the continued ignoring of a people thrown into poverty and hopelessness. It is designed to make sure they remain “Indians” and never become “Native Americans” or, more to the point, human beings.
As long as we can maintain stereotypical views of peoples who, in reality, are quite dissimilar, we can continue to ride around with Dream Catchers on the rearview mirror that we bought from someone at a roadside stand.