Questions on Standing Bear

The following was sent to my e-mail by a friend who reads but cannot post: I find the comment intriguing and so set forth on the stormy sea of typing to attempt an answer.


So how did that trial turn out? Were American Indians recognized as human beings? Did it change anything about the way they were treated?

Not to diminish what was done to them, but the way the Indians are treated now is as much a divisive factor as was the wanton slaying, lying and generally abominable treatment inflicted upon them back then. Anytime you treat someone specially (whether that treatment be good or ill) based on the color of their skin, you are introducing an unnecessarily seditious component. Also, if the Indians who's ancestors were simply slaughtered or dispossessed are privy to preferential treatment, why are the blacks who's ancestors were enslaved and also killed at random or beaten without reason (among the numerous other evils inflicted upon them) not deemed to be qualified for such treatment. (I know I am probably preaching to the choir on most of this but oh well.)

Also it should be noted that I seem to have a need to play devil’s advocate and find myself sometimes arguing points I do not wholly believe in or understand. So if you feel like it you can probably disregard most of what I said here.

The trial was a mixed result. Standing Bear and his followers were allowed to leave the death trap of Oklahoma Territory. However, the Indian Affairs head, a close friend of President Hays, seriously hated this result. He therefore commanded the US Army to keep an eye out for Standing Bear. If he entered any "Indian Lands", including his hom on the Niabora, he was to be arrested for trespassing.
It is interesting to note that had the army kept whites from trespassing the Native Americans would have still been on their homeland. But what is good for the goose was NOT, in this case, good for the gander.
Furthermore, he being a person was ordered by Secretary of the Interior Carl Schulz to apply only to that isolated case. No other Native American received the benefit.
Ultimately it allowed Standing Bear, Bright Eyes/Susette La Flesche, Woodworker/Francis La Flesche, and Henry Tibbles to go on speaking tours, sometimes accompanied by Helen Hunt Jackson (author of the extremely influential A Century of Dishonor) and ultimately the Poncas did get to return, although not until Schulz was out of office.
The comment on the divisiveness of the current treatment of Native Americans was quite insightful. Reagan, Bush Sr., and CLinton all were administrations that saw Native American lands shrink and companies continue to benefit from contracts that bear every stamp of illegality. The battle is not over for what will be the heart and soul of Native Americans. Wars are being waged over who "is" Indian and even what it "means" to be Indian along with who has the right to make decisions for the various tribes.
However, here is where we come to a point of disagreement. He said, "Also, if the Indians who's ancestors were simply slaughtered or dispossessed are privy to preferential treatment, why are the blacks who's ancestors were enslaved and also killed at random or beaten without reason (among the numerous other evils inflicted upon them) not deemed to be qualified for such treatment."
There is a crucial difference. As he alluded, I am strongly against reparations. However, in the case of Native Americans, it is not preferential treatment being sought. Instead, they are seeking to have the laws and treaties already and still on the books, honored.
When the Lakotas (known to pop culture as the Sioux) were promised the Black Hills would be theirs forever , that treaty has never been legally abrogated or replaced. When annuities were promised "as long as the rivers shal run and the grass shall grow", that is a legal claim. Those annuities are still owed.
Here is an interesting one. A treaty exists between the Cherokee and the United States that promises a seat in the Senate. I for one would LOVE to see that treaty obligation honored.
The situation with the blacks is apples to oranges to the Native Americans. Despite similarities in mistreatment and discrimination, one has a claim under the color of law while the other simply has a claim under color of morality.
That morality is a hard one to define and establish as it comes from what source? This country (allegedly) is founded and run upon the rule of law. Obviously, various incidents have given the lie to that claim, but that is still the mythology of the U.S.
Native Americans are still struggling to have that law upheld.
Hopefully this sounded well thought out, reasoned, and intelligent and not condescending or demeaning in any way. I have studied so much of this, particularly recently, that I have to be careful to neither assume things are known and therefore leave them out, nor assume people know nothing and put in possibly extraneous information.
One example would be the Sioux/Lakota/Dakota thing. I know enough to break it down to the Oglalla, Hunkpapa, Lakota, and other branches...and in modern times can even go so far as to talk about the Pine Ridge Reservation Sioux, for example. This further exemplifies one problem with addressing a people as "Indians" or Native Americans", because all of those are references to what pop culture simply calls the Sioux. And until we have a better understanding of that truth, trouble will continue to exist.