Showing posts with label sitting bull. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sitting bull. Show all posts

Monday, April 26, 2021

Sitting Bull’s Last Stand…


September 8, 1883, was a milestone for the people of The United States. It was the day that the growing nation was joined east-to-west with the completion of the northern transcontinental railroad. The Union Pacific and the Central Pacific Railroads had accomplished this task in 1869 by linking New York City with Sacramento, California, but a northern route was deemed necessary, joining the Great Lakes at Duluth, Minnesota to Puget Sound in Washington.

 

The Northern Pacific Railroad was given a charter by Congress in 1864 and the work began in 1870, one year after the Union Pacific and Central Pacific route had been completed with the golden spike ceremony at Promontory Point in Utah. Following the example of the Union and Central Pacific, the northern route was constructed with two crews, one working east to west and the other working west to east.

 

Fourteen years and 6,800 miles of railroad track later, the two crews met near Gold Creek, Montana (where the first gold in the state was discovered in 1852), about forty miles west of Helena. A lavish celebration was planned for the occasion. Five trains carried dignitaries from the east and the west coasts, with over 300 people there to witness the symbolic driving-in of the golden spike. Those in attendance included railroad officials, former U.S. President, Ulysses S. Grant, governors from all of the states that the railroad crossed; bankers and investors, and foreign diplomats from Europe. One of the most notable dignitaries, however, was Sitting Bull, the Hunkpapa Lakota leader who had guided his people in their efforts to resist the U.S. government and the expansion of white settlers into Lakota territory.

 

Route of the Northern Pacific

After Sitting Bull’s victory at the Little Bighorn in June of 1876, the backlash from the U.S. Army was so intense, that life for the Lakota became almost impossible. In May of 1877, Sitting Bull led his band of Lakota north across the border into Canada where they remained for four years. The lack of buffalo herds led to near starvation for Sitting Bull and his people and prompted a return to the United States. On July 19, 1881, Sitting Bull surrendered to Major David H. Brotherton, commanding officer of Fort Buford in the Dakota Territory. 

 

Having been asked to participate in the golden spike ceremony for the Northern Pacific Railroad, Sitting Bull saw his chance for one last act of defiance, so he agreed to give a speech.

 

The Golden Spike Ceremony, September 8, 1883.

The time came for the proud Lakota Chief to make his speech, and he rose to his feet. His speech had been previously submitted for “approval” and had been heavily edited by a young army officer who happened to be the only other person present who understood the Lakota language. As he started to speak, the audience was shocked to hear him speaking in Lakota, even though he was fluent in English; however, the young army officer was even more shocked to discover that Sitting Bull was NOT delivering the speech that had been approved.

 

Sitting Bull began,

 

“I hate all white people. You are thieves and liars. You have taken away our land and made us outcasts.”

 

He continued to describe all of the atrocities that his people had endured at the hands of the whites. He gave a scathing rebuke of white corruption and greed. The only person there who understood what Sitting Bull was saying was the young army officer, who wisely remained quiet. The rest of the crowd assumed that Sitting Bull was praising their great accomplishment, so they would cheer and applaud whenever Sitting Bull would pause in his speech. When he finished speaking, Sitting Bull received a standing ovation from the crowd that he had just contemptuously chided.

 

Although he had been forced to surrender in order to feed his starving people, Sitting Bull still had plenty of animosity and fight left in him.

 

During the next few years, Sitting Bull toured the country with various Wild West shows, and met both Buffalo Bill Cody and Annie Oakley. He was so impressed with Annie Oakley that he symbolically “adopted” her as a daughter in 1884. He named her “Little Sure Shot” – a name that Oakley used throughout her career.

 

Sitting Bull was shot to death on December 15, 1890, at the Standing Rock Indian Agency. Ironically, he was shot, not by white men, but by Lakota Reservation Police trying to arrest him. 


About the Author

Mike is an award-winning Western author currently living in a 600 square foot cabin in the mountains of Western Montana. He has been married to his redheaded sweetheart, Tami, since 1989. He is a Western Fictioneers Peacemaker Award Finalist two years in a row and his short stories have been published in numerous anthologies and are available through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other online retailers as well as brick and mortar bookstores. His first Western novel, The Sons of Philo Gaines, was released in November of 2020. It is available everywhere books are sold. Mike is a member of Western Writers of America and Western Fictioneers. You can find him on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelRRittAuthor, or at his website https://michaelrritt.com.


Saturday, June 20, 2015

NEW RELEASE AND GIVEAWAY OF "CHIEF OF THIEVES" by STEVE KOHLHAGEN

I've been gratified by the reception for Chief of Thieves this week. Reviews, support, the whole ball of wax. Writing is great fun. Getting it out there, gratifying. Knowing that others enjoy the work is better than not!

Now i'm getting "Will this be a trilogy?" Turns out i can't answer that for anybody who hasn't read the book---it gives too much about the ending away!  ;-)

Speaking of giving it away, we're giving away a signed copy of Chief of Thieves to one person who comments on this blog. All you have to do is leave a comment, and presto! You have a possible gift with no downside.

Thanks to all for your support.


Chief of Thieves, Sunstone Press, is now available at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Custer Luck Runs Out: Or, What Really Did Happen At the Little Bighorn? by Steven W. Kohlhagen



June 25, 1876. The Battle of the Little Bighorn. Much has been written about this iconic battle in American history. And I'm sure there's much more to follow.

That battle captured the imagination of the American people, starting the very day news of it reached the ears of a startled nation, literally on the hundredth anniversary of the country's birth, July 4, 1876 at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. It marked the death of George Armstrong Custer, the popular Civil War General and possible (in his eyes if not in others) future U.S. President (he had been in Washington a few short weeks before, testifying about the corruption of (a furious) President Grant's administration). And, as Nathaniel Philbrick brilliantly develops in his The Last Stand, though they were victorious in that battle, it actually marked the last stand of the Plains Indians against the U.S. Army.

In his just-published, micro-detailed book, Fights on the Little Horn: Unveiling the Myths of Custer's Last Stand, Gordon Harper makes a dramatic point I'd never thought of. This is the only battlefield in the history of the world that he (and I) can name "which claims to mark the actual locations where all the individual soldiers met their deaths." And, of course, interestingly, for only the losing side.

And then there have been the innumerable other books, the movies, the magazine articles, the paintings, the debates, and the controversies for now approaching 140 years. My own historical fiction novel, Chief of Thieves, is coming out a week from tomorrow, June 15, from Sunstone Press. The book essentially ends that afternoon at the Little Bighorn, and is a sequel to my earlier novel, Where They Bury You, also from Sunstone Press.

But I digress. The subject for today is supposed to be "what really did happen" that day.

For decades, received thought was "we'll never know." After all, the whole point was that there were no human survivors. It was a massacre. Oops! There were "nine million" surviving Plains Indians (an art dealer friend in Santa Fe related to me last month that his 11-year old daughter insisted to him---even over his objections---that there was no mystery: "after all, Daddy, Custer only had two hundred soldiers and there were nine million Indians"). Since historians and surviving Indians alike have, in fact, in 139 years never agreed on how many Indians were in that mile-long set of villages, I'll choose until a little later below to go with the 5th grader's estimate!

And as Gregory F. Michno shows in riveting detail in his Lakota Noon, and Kate Bighead discussed (actually, that's her reservation name---her Cheyenne name was Antelope; she survived and discussed both the Washita and Little Bighorn battles), those "nine million" Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne were not mute, were not unobservant, and told a story that is consistent with much subsequent research and the battlefield terrain. Antelope lives on as a very major character in Chief of Thieves.

What follows, as briefly as I can, is a description of what I believe happened that day on the banks of the Little Bighhorn River. It agrees in the main with Philbrick, Michno's witnesses, Harper, and, of course, Antelope. They are not responsible if i have included any misinterpretations or imperfect extrapolations.

George Armstrong Custer

On June 22, 1876 George Armstrong Custer led his 7th Cavalry from the Yellowstone River under orders from General Terry and Colonel Gibbon to ride south up the entire length of the Rosebud, then west to below where they believed the (unknown) number of Indians would be camped. Thus Custer would be south of the Indians and could coordinate an attack simultaneously with Terry and Gibbon when they arrived from the north. In effect, surrounding the Indians.

In fact, when he found the Indians' trail before reaching the mouth of the Rosebud, he used his initiative and turned west to follow the Indians, well before his literal instructions had ordered. Much has been made of this "disobedience." I side with those military historians who say nonsense, This was not Custer's first rodeo. He had found the Indians' trail, and would, in fact, find them and be to their south, where his superiors expected him to be.

He and his scouts saw the village on the banks of the Little Bighorn on the morning of the 25th. They had marched on the order of a hundred miles in three days, including an exhausting all night thirty mile ride the night of the 24th/25th instead of camping after riding thirty miles the day of the 24th. They were two days earlier than when Terry would arrive from the north.

Custer's revised plan was to attack the village at dawn on the morning of the 26th after a day of rest and reconnaissance. Not a terrible plan. In retrospect, the morning of the 27th would have been better, but Custer had spent years chasing the Plains Indians and then watching them disappear at the expected point of contact. The village was right there before his eyes. He would attack the next morning.

Crazy Horse

But then his scouts and troops discovered three circumstances of their presence having been discovered by the Indians. His experience was that, as a result of these discoveries, the Indian village would simply not be there in the morning. Interestingly, unbeknownst to Custer, but known today, was the fact that one week before, Crazy Horse had not sat around waiting for his village to be attacked. He had led a thousand Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne into a direct,victorious battle against General Crook less than a day's ride south of where Custer sat at that moment.

Captain Frederick Benteen

Now abandoning the idea of scouting out the size of the village all afternoon, Custer made the decision to march on the village (of unknown size) immediately. As the 7th Cavalry neared the village, in a much-criticized move, Custer sent Captain Frederick Benteen's companies due west to cut off any escape from the soon-to-be attacked village. Ordering him to take women and children prisoners if the Indians retreated toward him.

Major Marcus Reno

He then ordered Major Marcus Reno to take his companies to the left and attack the village from its southern tip, telling him that he, Custer, would support him. Custer then took his remaining five companies to the right, across the bluffs overlooking the village, which he intended to attack at its northern, eastern edge. When he (finally) saw the the staggering size of the village from the bluffs, Custer sent emergency orders to Benteen to "come quick" to reinforce him.

That was Custer's planning. He would attack the village from the north and the south, precisely Terry and Gibbon's original planning. But as Dwight Eisenhower would say some sixty years later, "Planning is everything. Plans are nothing."

Before we reach the universally known climax, let's stop for a minute and review received thought and the charges leveled by a hundred and forty years of Monday morning quarterbacks.

---Custer disobeyed his orders in not marching up the length of the Rosebud, before heading west. NOT GUILTY. Any battle-proven commander knows that initiative in the face of overwhelming new intelligence is required. It's his job. Gibbon and Terry knew their man extremely well. They had begged President Grant to look past personal anger and let them have Custer as their chief weapon against the Sioux. Besides, he wound up south of the village without the Indians' knowledge, which was the idea from the beginning.

---Custer attacked a village with no reconnaissance and no idea that he was up against nine million Indians (well, okay, whereas there is no precise consensus among historians, it is generally believed there were on the order of 1,200 lodges along that mile of the Little Bighorn, with, accordingly, approximately 6,000 to 7,000 Indians, and, maybe 2,500 warriors, give or take, against the 7th's 700 man cavalry). A QUALIFIED GUILTY. BUT, his experience told him two things: 1) the Indians would be gone in the morning and he and Gibbon and Terry (and Crook) would have to start all over again; and 2) charging into a village from multiple directions would yield women and children prisoners, and the braves would immediately cease fighting and surrender. Had he known he was outnumbered by the warriors only three or four to one, he would not have hesitated to mount a surprise attack on the village.

---Custer attacked without coordinating with Gibbon and Terry who were approaching from the north. Again A QUALIFIED GUILTY. BUT, same rationale as above.

---Custer irresponsibly split his forces. NOT GUILTY. This was standard cavalry tactics by the U.S. Army against the Plains Indians. It had worked in every success against the Plains Indians, including by Custer at the Washita. In fact, Gibbon and Terry, themselves, had split their entire command in precisely the same manner, among Crook, presumably still coming from the south, Custer coming from the east, and Gibbon and Terry coming up from the north. The identical splitting of their entire force into three groups.

So, then, what did happen to Custer's plan?

Setting aside the fact that the Indians were minding their own business in their villages that day, living and hunting on lands given to them "forever" by President Grant, and were not bothering any white settlers despite the very same Custer's previous desecration of their sacred Badlands, and that the U.S. Army was participating in a completely indefensible war against the Sioux and the Cheyenne, Custer was participating in that war, and, as an officer of the U.S. Army was doing the job his country had given him that day.  From the comfort of our 21st Century armchairs and laptops and iPads, Sitting Bull and his "nine million" Indians were the good guys, and Custer and his 700 troops (many of them immigrants just off the boats) were the bad guys. No sympathy for Custer from 2015 Americans. Nor should there be.

Sitting Bull

Here's what happened---it's pretty simple actually. Sitting Bull himself reported later that Custer almost carried the day. Almost.

---Reno, ordered to attack the southern edge of the village while Custer was to support him (with Benteen coming up behind, and/or Custer fording the river and attacking the northern village (the Northern Cheyenne, Antelope's village, actually), disobeyed his orders and didn't attack. Drunk, he instead took up defensive positions just short of the village against a prairie dog village. Seeing the soldiers approach, but not attack, Sitting Bull remembered thinking that they had come to negotiate. When the warriors he sent to see what the soldiers at the prairie dog village wanted were shot, the warriors not very surprisingly, attacked Reno. Led by Crazy Horse, they drove the soldiers into the woods along the west bank of the Little Bighorn, and then into the river itself. The drunken Reno led a frantic retreat (which he heinously and self-servingly called an "attack") into the river and up a hill. He lost half his men before taking up position in disarray on the hill (now known as "Reno Hill").

---Benteen, receiving the orders to "come quick" with ammunition and his men to reinforce Custer, disobeyed his orders and not only didn't come quick, he never came at all. He joined Reno on the hill, and, in fairness, set up the defenses that the drunken and (probably terrified) Reno was incompetent to do. Benteen then remained in place, asserting that Custer had abandoned them to their fate, and, instead of "coming quick" to reinforce Custer, helped defend Reno on the hill from the attacking Indians.

---Custer, expecting the warriors to be occupied at the southern end of the villages by Reno, and expecting Benteen to be arriving to double his forces, began searching for a way down the bluffs to ford the river and capture defenseless fleeing women and children and then supervise a quick warrior surrender. But instead, because he had been seen on the bluffs, and because Reno had fled rather than attacking, most of the roughly 2,500 warriors began streaming, like water broken through a dam, to the north, toward Custer's five companies on the bluffs.

---While the Indians had no idea this was the soldier they called Long Hair come to attack them (he had cut off his curly locks), any number of the surviving Indians recounted the roughly forty-five minute disappearance of one of the companies during the ensuing battle (Michno, Lakota Noon). This was almost assuredly Custer riding down to the river to find a place to cross. He had left his other four companies strategically placed to fight a defensive battle on the high points of the bluffs to: 1) await the arrival of Benteen and maybe even Reno who had not attacked from the south; and 2) then Custer could lead them all down to the river to cross and win the battle in the village itself. It was that company that Sitting Bull saw and that led him to comment that they would have taken the day if they had come across the river in force.

---But Custer, presumably having found his ford (we'll, of course, never know, since that secret died with him), headed back up the bluffs to his other four companies to help them hold their defensive positions until Benteen's expected arrival.

---And there they all died. All roughly 220 of them. All evidence and all accounts by the surviving Indians suggest that Custer's five companies fought hard and effectively until an "old" (32ish, "old"!) Cheyenne chief with the ironic name of Lame White Man rallied the Indians up out of a coulee and drove the soldiers into disarray. Crazy Horse then opportunistically led the Lakota Sioux into the routed soldiers. Outnumbered by a much superior force who had the home field advantage of all home field advantages, and without their ordered and expected reinforcements, Custer's five 7th Cavalry companies were massacred.

The Indians then went back and continued attacking Reno and Benteen on their hill the night of the 25th and the day of the 26th.

The morning of the 27th, General Terry's forces arrived coming up the Little Bighorn from the north. The Indians had left, taking their villages with them. Terry was shown the sight of the massacre by his scouts. Terry's men then proceeded south to tell Reno and Benteen, who professed to still believe that Custer had abandoned them and was refusing to come help them.

Reno and Benteen were roughly three and a half miles away from Last Stand Hill. An hour's walk.

Reno was certainly guilty of: disobeying direct orders and being drunk while commanding his troops. He was probably guilty of cowardice and inability to command.

Benteen was certainly guilty of disobeying direct orders and probably guilty of failure to come to the aid of his fellow soldiers.

George Armstrong Custer was certainly guilty of being on the wrong side of public opinion 140 years after the fact; of being reckless throughout his professional career; and of being unprepared due to insufficient intelligence going into battle. The latter two had held him in good stead throughout his Civil War and Indian Military career up until his luck ran out at the Little Bighorn. He was demonstrably not guilty of dividing his command, as this was the tactic used successfully by the Army in general, and him in particular in previous, successful, engagements with the Plains Indians.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if Benteen and Reno had followed Custer's direct orders. Would Sitting Bull's speculation that the 7th Cavalry would have carried the day be correct? Or would the massacre at the Little Big Horn been of all 700 members of the 7th Cavalry?

But Benteen and Reno did not follow their orders.

And history, at least as it is "known" by the vast majority of the public, has let Benteen and Reno escape what should have been their deserved reputations
for insubordination, incompetence, and cowardice. Shockingly and inappropriately, a 1967 U.S. Army review board had Marcus Reno's remains reinterred on the Little Bighorn Battlefield, despite the fact that he had been dismissed from the Army for conduct unbecoming an officer.


www.StevenWKohlhagen.com
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-W.-Kohlhagen/e/B00E5LZ0B4/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
https://www.facebook.com/SteveKohlhagenAuthor
Twitter: @StevenKohlhagen
stevekohlhagen@comcast.net

Where They Bury You, Sunstone Press, can be purchased at http://www.amazon.com/Where-They-Bury-You-Novel/dp/0865349398/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1389914377 
     



Chief of Thieves, Sunstone Press, will be available on June 15, 2015.



  

  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Writing about Indians When You're Not One: Property


Troy D. Smith

In this installment of our series about the cultural differences that non-indigenous writers should be aware of when writing about American Indians, we're going to discuss attitudes toward property.

Perhaps you have heard these things said about Indians: A) They had no sense of personal property. B) They had no concept of owning the land.

How true are those statements? Well, the answers are complex... but North American tribes definitely had outlooks about property and ownership that were far different from the European approach.

First off, you can't really say Indians did not have personal property. Let's say you were an Indian man (from any tribe, really)... and you had made your own tools and weapons. Well, those are yours, and you would definitely not appreciate someone just wandering into your domicile and taking them. On the other hand, you might not be as attached to them as most Europeans were to their own goods, and you might feel an obligation -and in some instances social pressure -to give them away pretty easily.

Owning the land? That's different. Traditional indigenous cultures did not recognize human ownership of land, or the lives of the animals on it. They did recognize the right to use that land, or those animals -although often more in a communal context than an individual one (the technical Western word for that, by the way, is usufruct rights.)

Certain regions might be claimed by some tribes as their hunting grounds. This didn't mean they owned the land or animals, but that their tribe claimed the right to use them- often more than one tribe made such claims. Sometimes that worked out okay, sometimes it didn't. So far as the animals were concerned, if you killed one you conducted a ritual in which you thanked either the animal itself or the spirit (or manitou, in Algonquian tribes) that represented that species for granting you the gift of its life, and it was expected you would use that gift respectfully. If you did not, or were ungrateful, you risked the spirit's wrath on you or, since there was a sense of communal responsibility, on your village or tribe. You did not assume you had an innate, divine right to take those lives because you somehow owned the creatures themselves.



Let us now assume you were a member of a tribe that practiced agriculture (which most did.) Your village would have the right to use a certain area, and usually each family had a portion of their own to work. Another portion was set aside as a common garden, which belonged to the whole village. Needy people would often be fed from that section.

Among some tribes, everything was common. The Cherokees would distribute the grain to all the families in a village each corn harvest, each according to what it was expected they would need to get through the winter -and the rest was burned as a sacrifice. No one accumulated anything, and there was no concept of profit. If the winter was worse than anyone expected, everyone would suffer together.

Sitting Bull (who was Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux), after the famous Indian victory at the Little Bighorn, worked for awhile in Buffalo Bill's traveling Wild West Show. As a member of the troupe he traveled widely, and one thing flabbergasted him in the large eastern cities, especially New York. He saw something there he had never encountered before.



There were children who were hungry and had no homes. At the same time, there were rich people.

This would not have been possible in his own culture. Anyone in need would be provided for out of the common stores. The whole village would prosper as one, or the whole village would suffer as one; some people having an abundance while others starved was unthinkable. Sitting Bull was known to take the money he received as wages for his performance in the show and pass it out indiscriminately to the street children.

As I mentioned in our last installment, about leadership, prestige was gained -not by how much you accumulated -but by how much you gave away. Warriors would take great risk to capture enemy horses or other goods -then often pass them out as gifts when they returned to the village, gaining social stature for doing so. Even as Cherokees had their Green Corn Ceremony, tribes in the Pacific Northwest had a ritual they called the potlatch. A potlatch was given -sometimes to commemorate a special occasion, sometimes not -in which a feast was thrown, and at the end the hosts gave away all or most of their belongings. There, too, there was social stature to be gained in doing so.



18th century Scotsman Alexander Hewatt said this of the Cusabo tribe of South Carolina:

"As for riches they have none, nor covet any; and while they have plenty of provisions, they allow none to suffer through want; if they are successful in hunting, all their unfortunate or distressed friends share with them the common blessings of life."

Early on, these differing approaches caused misunderstandings between Indians and settlers. The Puritans, for example, introduced domestic animals to New England, in the form of cattle and swine. It was not the custom at that time to build an enclosure for your stock, they were allowed to roam free -the wise Puritan built a fence around his garden, to keep the animals out. The wandering animals trampled down or ate the Indians' crops -which they did not appreciate, and caused much friction. On the other hand, Indians were prone to kill the roaming creatures and eat them.



Let's say you're a Wampanoag Indian, traveling through the forest, and you encounter a pig or a cow. A white settler in that context might ask "Gee, I wonder who this beast belongs to." A Wampanoag would think: "these woods are my people's hunting ground, and look, here is a four-legged creature. Let's eat it -clearly we have the right to do so." But to the settler, that Indian has become a poacher and a thief.



Of course, the trade opportunities presented by Europeans caused a lot of change. Here come these new folks, and they have lots of things that you value: steel tomahawks, steel sewing needles, guns, coffee, sugar, colored beads that were worthless to the Europeans but for your purposes far superior than colored shells for use in decoration or spiritual ceremonies. There had always been trade among Indians, in fact there were extensive trade routes centuries before Europeans arrived. But never had there been such unique trade items, that an Indian could not make himself. They started off as luxuries, but -as luxuries are wont to do -soon became necessities. The Europeans want furs? we'll give them furs (deer were hunted almost to extinction in the American South, mostly by Indians, by 1800.) They want captives they can use for slaves on their plantations? Our limited warfare has always produced a handful of captives- let's make war on each other continually, to get ever more captives to trade (this led to great social disruption, and the bloody Westo and Yamassee wars of the late 1600s / early 1700s.)

From the George Washington administration onward, Americans tried to "civilize" the Indians. One way to do this was to break them from their tribal, communal, shared ownership ideas and teach them to be individuals, and to compete with each other. In fact, Thomas Jefferson proposed that Indians' land could be acquired without bloodshed if the U.S. government established trading posts among them, and introduced them to credit. They would soon find themselves overextended, the government could call the credit in, and the Indians would have no choice but to sell their lands as payment. His plan can be found HERE in a letter to then-military-governor of Indiana William Henry Harrison.



In the late 19th century the "Americanization" process was sought through implementation of the Dawes Act, or allotment. Tribes were discorporated, as was their communal ownership of land; instead, each individual family was given a plot of land to work on their own like good ol' American yeoman farmers. This had two immediate effects: 1) there would always be a whole lot of land left over, which would previously have belonged to the tribe in common, but which the government now took and redistributed to settlers, and 2) since Indians now had individual ownership, white people could buy those claims from them if the Indians were financially hard-pressed (which they were), which would not have been possible when the whole tribe controlled the land. This resulted in even more Indian land passing out of Indian hands. There were also unanticipated social effects, such as a breakdown in community (Indians were not loners, and had always tended to live in large groups; breaking the land up into individual, far-flung farms made each family a lonely island) and in gender roles (the government viewed each family's "head of house" to be the husband/father, even in tribes where traditionally it was women who controlled agriculture.)



We'll actually go into that in more detail next time, when our topic will be "Gender."