Red and White on the Boarder
Three Interesting Points -=- Jen Lamb
- T.R.’s “mild” adventure with Indians that he described is very interesting because it shows the unfair control that whites exercised over their relations with the Indians. T.R. was on a plateau far from his ranch and the Indians came charging at him with guns and were “whooping.” However, T.R. said that he had the best chance of survival on a flat plain because then the Indians couldn’t hide. He calmly waited until they were only 100 ft. away and then he fired a shot and they dispersed and “scattered out as wild pigeons or teal ducks sometimes do when shot at.” This quote shows that he compares and regards the Indians as more closely associated with animals rather than humans. Once the party of Indians regrouped they sent one representative over to T.R. with a piece of paper because all Indians were supposed to carry passes when they left their reservations and say “How! Me good Indian” so the white settler could know that they weren’t going to be hurt. When T.R. refused to let them come closer the Indian used “Anglo-Saxon” profanity and left. I thought this passage was interesting because it shows how poorly Indians were treated by having to carry passes, and how they were very misunderstood. Different Indian tribes had their own languages, but it was assumed that all Indians used the common stereotyped “How” as a greeting, and all Indians, regardless of their tribal language, were expected to use this stereotyped greeting by the white settlers.
- I think the following passage is interesting because is shows T.R.’s ability to characterize both cultures in conflict and his ability to see both sides of the conflict. He called the frontiersmen “brutal, reckless, and overbearing” and called the Indians “treacherous, revengeful, and fiendishly cruel.” He stated that when these two personalities meet the only result that can occur is conflict. He also noted that writers usually only listen to one side of the story- “in our dealings with Indians we have erred quite as often through sentimentality as through willful wrong-doing.” He said the main cause of the conflict is the “tendency on each side to hold the race, and not the individual, responsible for the deeds of the latter.” He also noticed that people tend to punish thieves only if the crime occurs within one’s race. T.R. said that Indian tribes differ and that “An upper class Cherokee is nowadays as good as a white.” He also noted that the mixing of races can be successful. I wonder after being able to see both sides and realize that sometimes white people treat the Indians badly as well, how did T.R. evolve to favor harsher policies against Indian tribes during his presidency?
- I also find the following quote very interesting: “Of course the cowboys were all eager for war, they did not much care with whom; they were very patriotic…” I just think it’ s interesting that being “patriotic” can be used as an excuse or be a good reason to fight a war that the cowboys knew nothing about.
Christin Tower: “My only adventure with Indians was of a very mild kind.” Roosevelt came across four or five Natives and once they saw him as a white man they started to charge at him because he was outnumbered. “I waited until the Indians were a hundred yards off, and then threw up my rifle and drew a bead on the foremost. The effect was like magic. The whole party scattered out as wild pigeons or teal ducks sometimes do when shot at, and doubled back on their tracks, the men bending over alongside their horses. When some distance off they halted and gathered together to consult, and after a minute one came forward alone, ostentatiously dropping his rifle and waving a blanket over his head. When he came to within fifty yards I stopped him, and he pulled out a piece of paper—all Indians, when absent from their reservations, are supposed to carry passes—and called out, "How! Me good Indian!" I answered, "How," and assured him most sincerely I was very glad he was a good Indian, but I would not let him come closer; and when his companions began to draw near, I covered him with the rifle and made him move off, which he did with a sudden lapse into the most canonical Anglo-Saxon profanity.”
~It sounds like some Americans approached situations with Natives in different ways and not all was violent. Roosevelt seemed to have an understanding with the Natives and had a good way to handle them which did not lead to violence. Growing up I feel I was always taught that Natives and the white people did not see eye to eye. I also can recall learning about instances where the Natives would come into towns and burn them down, steal livestock and kill whoever got in their way usually by beheading or scalping. This was due to the fact that the white people would do the same to them and also were taking over their land.
“A white or an Indian who would not himself commit any outrage will yet make no effort to prevent his fellows from organizing expeditions against men of the rival race. This is natural enough where law is weak, and where, in consequence, every man has as much as he can do to protect himself without meddling in the quarrels of his neighbors. Thus a white community will often refrain from taking active steps against men who steal horses only from the Indians, although I have known a number of instances where the ranchmen have themselves stopped such outrages. The Indians behave in the same way.”
“Not only do Indians differ individually, but they differ as tribes. An upper-class Cherokee is nowadays as good as a white. The Nez Percés differ from the Apaches as much as a Scotch laird does from a Calabrian bandit. A Cheyenne warrior is one of the most redoubtable foes in the whole world; a "digger" Snake one of the most despicable. The Pueblo is as thrifty, industrious, and peaceful as any European peasant, and no Arab of the Soudan is a lazier, wilder robber than is the Arapahoe.”
~ I never knew that there were classes within the Natives. It is also surprising to read Roosevelt comparing Natives class to white men’s class. He did go on to say that when fighting all Natives suffers together and all Natives have a fair amount of beast within them. They may be friendly with the white men one moment but then turn around and kill them.
The gear they had to wear in the winter was very extensive, yet that is what kept them alive. http://blackboard.assumption.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_1063_1 <http://blackboard.assumption.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_1063_1>
http://blackboard.assumption.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_1063_1 <http://blackboard.assumption.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_1063_1>
This picture shows Natives and Cowboys walking right pass each other. The Natives faces do not look too pleased yet they are not attacking the white men. This reminds me of the story Roosevelt discussed when he met some Natives.
http://blackboard.assumption.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_1063_1 <http://blackboard.assumption.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_1063_1>Frank Galligan: "Red And White On The Border" is an entry written by Theodore Roosevelt that entails his personal opinions of Native Americans. In addition, it also includes detailed stories of experiences many men have had when it comes to dealing with Native Americans of the midwest.
Overall, I found the article to be a real eye-opener as to what the Native Americans were like, at least from the perspective of an American white male. As I read, however, I had to keep in mind that I was taking in only one viewpoint (or in the case of quotes from other white males - several viewpoints on one party's side), considering the fact that if these same situations were told by a Native American, the accounts would no doubt be radically different. Even Roosevelt makes note of this situation in a certain point of the selection that I found to be most interesting:
"The relations between the white borderers and their red-skinned foes and neighbors are rarely pleasant. There are incessant quarrels, and each side has to complain of bitter wrongs. Many of the frontiersmen are brutal, reckless, and overbearing; most of the Indians are treacherous, revengeful, and fiendishly cruel. Crime and bloodshed are the only possible results when such men are brought in contact. Writers usually pay heed only to one side of the story; they recite the crimes committed by one party, whether whites or Indians, and omit all reference to the equally numerous sins of the other. In our dealings with the Indians we have erred quite as often through sentimentality as through willful wrong-doing. Out of my own short experience I could recite a dozen instances of white outrages which, if told alone, would seem to justify all the outcry raised on behalf of the Indian; and I could also tell of as many Indian atrocities which make one almost feel that not a single one of the race should be left alive."
Here, one gets a good idea as to what went on when white men and Native Americans met, while at the same time gets reminded of the fact that any accounts we read are most often only one person's perspective, and it is not the whole picture. It makes me wonder if the history books I've used throughout my education in elementary school and beyond were conscious enough to take in both perspectives.
The following passage is another point in the article that provoked thought over how similar white men were to the Native Americans. At certain points in my education, Native Americans were often depticted as savages who had full run of the land out west - and if white men were to intrude, the results would be deadly. Reading through this article, I have come to realize even more that Native Americans were no more different than the white man when it comes to fighting off enemies. This is best seen in the statement below.
"A white or an Indian who would not himself commit any outrage will yet make no effort to prevent his fellows from organizing expeditions against men of the rival race. This is natural enough where law is weak, and where, in consequence, every man has as much as he can do to protect himself without meddling in the quarrels of his neighbors. Thus a white community will often refrain from taking active steps against men who steal horses only from the Indians, although I have known a number of instances where the ranchmen have themselves stopped such outrages. The Indians behave in the same way."
Finally, towards the end of Roosevelt's entry, I found one statement to be rather intruiging:
"The two former friends then, finding their efforts useless, forthwith turned round and joined with the others, first in violating the wretched daughters, and then in putting them to death with tortures that cannot even be hinted at. The boy alone was allowed to live. If he had been a native-born frontiersman, instead of a peaceful, quiet German, he probably would have turned into an inveterate Indian-slayer, resolute to kill any of the hated race wherever and whenever met—a type far from unknown on the border, of which I have myself seen at least one example."
I am curious as to why the boy was allowed to live, whereas his mother and sisters were killed. Is is because the Indians perhaps wanted to take him in and make him a warrior or fighter for their side?
"American Progress," by John Gast (see Trachtenberg, pp. 26-27)
This rich and wonderful country--the progress of which at the present time, is the wonder of the old world--was until recently, inhabited exclusively by the lurking savage and wild beasts of prey. If the rapid progress of the "Great West" has surprised our people, what will those of other countries think of the "Far West," which was destined at an early day, to be the vast granary [grain producing region], as it is now the treasure chamber of our country?...
In the foreground, the central and principal figure, a beautiful and charming Female, is floating westward through the air bearing on her forehead the "Star of Empire...." On the right of the picture is a city, steamships, manufactories, schools and churches over which beams of light are streaming and filling the air--indicative of civilization. The general tone of the picture on the left declares darkness, waste and confusion. From the city proceed the three great continental lines of railway.... Next to these are the transportation wagons, overland stage, hunters, gold seekers, pony express, pioneer emigrant and the warrior dance of the "noble red man." Fleeing from "Progress"...are Indians, buffaloes, wild horses, bears, and other game, moving Westward, ever Westward, the Indians with their squaws, papooses, and "pony lodges," turn their despairing faces towards, as they flee the wondrous vision. The "Star" is too much for them.
...What home, from the miner's humble cabin to the stately marble mansion of the capitalist, should be without this Great National Picture, which illustrates in the most artistic manner all the gigantic results of American Brains and Hands! Who would not have such a beautiful token to remind them of the country's grandeur and enterprise which have caused the mighty wilderness to blossom like the rose!!!
Excerpts from explanatory text that George A. Croffut provided to market John Gast's 1872 lithograph American Progress.
