|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRIBAL CULTURAL
CLASH
Participate, profit or protest? Native
Americans are sharply divided on the merits of the bicentennial |
|
By
MARGOT ROOSEVELT As Printed in Times.com, July
1, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/2002/lewis_clark/ltribal.html |
Posted Sunday, June 30,
2002; 8:31 a.m. EST
Prairie grass ripples along the shores of North Dakota's Lake
Sakakawea, and a fat rainbow shimmers overhead. Here, if Amy
Mossett has her way, an $11 million interactive museum will soon
welcome visitors to the Lewis and Clark trail. Mossett, tourism
director for the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara tribes, is building
replica earth lodges and planning overnight sleep-in-a-teepee
packages with Indian food, ethno-botany hikes, buffalo-hide
painting and lectures on tribal trade networks — insect repellent
included. Her message: "Come and meet the descendants of the
people who provided shelter to Lewis and Clark."
If the Mandan are as friendly today as they were 200 years ago,
their neighbors the Teton Sioux, who were ornery in their
encounters with Lewis and Clark, remain almost as testy. A South
Dakota "scenic byway" designation drew initial opposition on the
Standing Rock reservation. Traditionalists fear that tourists will
loot sacred grave sites. And while the tribe is seeking grants for
roadside panels and interpretive centers, the message will be
mixed. "Our people have for too long put on beads and feathers and
danced for the white man," says Ronald McNeil, a great-great-great
grandson of Chief Sitting Bull and president of the local
community college. "Yes, we'll show how our ancestors lived when
Lewis and Clark came up the trail. But then we must say what
happened to them since. I'm tired of playing Indian and not
getting to be an Indian."
With conflicting emotions running deep among the tribes, Lewis
and Clark boosters hope to bridge the divide by touting the
expedition as "a journey of mutual discovery." Their fear: that
Indian protests will mar the festivities, as happened during the
1992 Columbus voyage anniversary. "We're not going to repeat the
Columbus debacle," says Michelle Bussard, executive director of
the National Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The
nonprofit group has assembled a 30-member Circle of Tribal
Advisers to promote Indian participation, and the National Park
Service has chosen a Mandan-Hidatsa, Gerard Baker, to be
superintendent of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. His
traveling exhibit, "Corps of Discovery II," will be "a tent of
many voices," he says, focusing on native cultures and their "hope
for the future."
It's all very inclusive, but these aren't Disney Indians.
"We're not celebrating Lewis and Clark," says Tex Hall, president
of the American Congress of Indians, who is scheduled to speak at
the January launch of the commemoration at Monticello, in
Charlottesville, Va. "Still, people are making money on this, so
don't leave out the Indians. It's an opportunity for us to tell
our story." And to revive cultures that are slipping away. In
Oregon, the Umatilla tribe, whose members told Clark they thought
the explorers were "supernatural and came down from the clouds,"
wants funds for a language-immersion program, as only a handful of
tribe members still speak their native language fluently. And the
tribe wants to publish an atlas of its Columbia River homeland
with more than 1,000 native place names, long extinct.
For more than a century, the history of Lewis and Clark's
encounters with the 58 tribes along the trail has been defined by
the white men's journals. The Mandan, who fed them, danced with
them and offered them sexual favors over the bitterly cold winter
of 1804-05, were described as good neighbors. The Lemhi Shoshone,
Lewis wrote, were "not only cheerful but even gay, fond of gaudy
dress ... generous with the little they possess, extremely honest
... " He admired the Chinook for their canoes, "remarkably neat,
light and well adapted for riding high waves" but disparaged their
"well-known treachery."
Today Indians are looking to their own oral histories, as well
as reading between the lines of the journals, to re-interpret what
happened. Says Ben Sherman, president of the Western American
Indian Chamber in Denver: "The upcoming events portray Clark as
the benevolent protector of Indians — that's propagandist
baloney." The tragic aftermath: as Governor of the Missouri
Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Clark presided
over President Thomas Jefferson's land-grab policy, which some
historians characterize as a direct cause of "cultural genocide"
and "ethnic cleansing."
In his journal, Lewis called the Blackfeet "a vicious lawless
and reather an abandoned set of wretches." But today's Blackfeet
want no one to forget that two of their warriors were killed in a
skirmish sparked by Lewis' talk of selling arms to rival tribes.
"We knew, 'There goes the neighborhood,'" says tribe member James
Craven, a professor at Clark University in Vancouver, Wash.
Diplomatic blunders also fueled a confrontation with the Teton
Sioux, gatekeepers of the Missouri, whom Clark later called "the
vilest miscreants of the savage race." LaDonna Bravebull, a
Standing Rock tour guide, touts her ancestors' viewpoint as,
"We're not taking your trinkets and your great white father. I
don't think so!"
Looking back, the Sioux had it right. Jefferson had told Lewis
to inform "those through whose country you will pass" that
"henceforth we become their fathers and friends, and that we shall
endeavor that they shall have no cause to lament the change." But
whites brought diseases that killed as many as 90% of some tribes'
members. Most of the tribes Lewis and Clark encountered were
forced off the rivers that sustained their commerce and culture
and herded onto reservations with poor soil. Today a third of
Native Americans live below the poverty line, and half are
unemployed.
The challenge for tribes is to share this history without
inducing compassion fatigue in the tourists they hope to attract.
One thing that unites Lewis and Clark enthusiasts and naysayers is
the burgeoning revival of Native American traditions. For
visitors, tribal culture offers a glimpse of the American past.
For Indians, it is key to their survival as distinct peoples. At
the Boys and Girls Club on Fort Berthold Reservation in North
Dakota, the posters read tradition, not addiction. At an Indian
Health Service clinic in Mobridge, S.D., teenage methamphetamine
users are introduced to the sweat lodge. The Cheyenne River Sioux
run a herd of more than 2,000 buffalo and distribute meat to tribe
members, while the Lower Brule Sioux are planning a buffalo
museum.
At Standing Rock, the combative past survives in surnames. On
radio station KLND — that's Lakota, Nakota, Dakota — the news is
from Mike Kills Pretty Enemy, the music from Virgil Taken Alive.
Last month tribe members gathered near the grave site of Sitting
Bull, General George Custer's conqueror, to pray at the graves of
long-ago chiefs — Thunderhawk, Rain-in-the-Face, Running Antelope.
A package event for tourists? Hardly. The Indians got there on
horseback and camped in the cold. In fact, they were not dressed
for tourist camcorders. They wore jeans, permanent press and
wrap-around shades. When they set fire to a wad of sage, in a
purification ritual, it was in a Folger's coffee can. And the
graveside speeches touched on the plague of alcoholism and suicide
among reservation youth. "We want our children to be proud they
are descendants of chiefs," says Sitting Bull kinsman McNeil. "So
when they play cowboys and Indians, they'll all want to be
Indians."
Indian pride and Indian politics could complicate the Lewis and
Clark commemoration. In April when 130 tribal delegates gathered
in Lewiston, Idaho, under the auspices of the Lewis and Clark
council, the tone veered sharply off the official "reconciliation"
trail. The group called on the Federal Government to extend legal
recognition to the Chinook, Clatsop and Monacan tribes, noting
"their pivotal role in the success of the expedition." Recognition
brings federal aid as well as sovereignty — and the right to build
casinos. Another resolution decried vandalism of sacred sites and
plundering of Indian graves as "acts of terrorism," adding that
the increase in Lewis and Clark visitors could result in "cultural
resource desecration [of] catastrophic proportions."
In recent years, Standing Rock's former historic-preservation
officer, Tim Mentz, reburied remains from 438 Indian graves that
had been disturbed. As federal officials have tinkered with the
water levels of the Missouri River, long-submerged Indian villages
have resurfaced, luring robbers seeking to profit from a black
market in bones and artifacts. "We are not archaeological
specimens," says Mentz indignantly. Unfortunately his zeal went
too far for some tribal officials. Mentz was fired last May. His
offense: refusing to disinter hillside graves to make way for a
road to the reservation casino.
Many of those graves are Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara, village
tribes that lived along the Missouri in what is now Standing Rock,
when the Sioux were nomadic warriors. But with smallpox decimating
their ranks, the Indian farmers were herded north to Fort Berthold
reservation. There they rebuilt their villages, only to be
displaced again in 1953 when Garrison Dam flooded their rich
bottomlands. If they see an opportunity in the Lewis and Clark
commemoration, it is because culture and economics are
intertwined. The image of Amy Mossett dressed up as Sacagawea
graces North Dakota tourist posters, but she says she isn't
"playing Indian." And her teepee sleepovers and earth-lodge
exhibits are part of something more significant than attracting
tourist dollars.
Like more and more Native Americans, Mossett is reviving
traditional culture in her daily life. Three years ago she began
cultivating a garden with a tribal elder to replicate the ancient
crops that Lewis and Clark once enjoyed. "You can't buy Mandan
blue corn flour in the grocery store," she says. She is taking a
course in porcupine-quill embroidery. And her teenage daughters
are studying the Hidatsa language in school. "Our tribes have
survived catastrophic events in the past 200 years," she says.
"But if we grieve forever, we will never move forward." |
|
|
|

 |
|
|
I salute Vergil Bedoni, Curly Bear Wagner, Rick Chapoose, Gary Tso,
Alex White Plume, Sandra Spang and others like them. These are just a
few of the many Natives in the United States who operate independent
businesses in the tourism industry. They are true entrepreneurs,
committing their lives, making investments, working hard and taking
risks.
These Native entrepreneurs are guides, outfitters, storytellers,
artists, herbalists, historians and performers. Some can pilot a raft
while describing ancient petroglyphs on rock walls. Others lead pony
trail rides, stopping to demonstrate natural foods and medicinal
plants, or to describe a sacred place on their lands. They may recite
more accurate tribal histories than schoolbooks. A few will tell
campfire legends of coyote or raven or spider, and sing traditional
songs before putting their guests to bed in a tipi or hogan.
Several Natives
market their tourism operations with attractive web sites while others
distribute simple brochures. A very few attend the world's largest
tourism trade shows in Europe, while others seldom market beyond their
reservation borders.
They mostly
attract visitors who are seeking in-depth experiences in Native
cultures. They avoid the business of drive-by tourists who peek into
pow wows, buy a few trinkets and head for the nearest Burger King.
They draw a lot of western Europeans who have done their homework, and
who often know more about Native cultures than our own non-Native
neighbors. Many foreign guests return year after year to Indian
Country, cherishing their hosts' special wisdom and worldview, their
close connections to the lands and their friendly welcome.
Native tourism
entrepreneurs don't build theme attractions or create illusions for
visitors. They don't need to. They are the real things, the authentic
attractions. The kinds of tourism enterprises these Native people
offer to the public are creative, unique and, indeed, special art
forms.
None of the many
Native tourism operators I know are getting rich or even well-to-do in
their businesses. A lot of them employ family members and others in
their communities. Their guests often benefit other reservation
businesses with their local purchases of goods and services. But
still, quite a number of the Native businesses are marginal in their
tourism operations, and some owners rely on other, more steady sources
of income.
In my
observations, I have found that most of these Native owners/ managers,
for all their hard work and dreams, are in serious need of support in
business training, marketing and financing. Many would do better if
they had access to reservation-based services that provide business
development support. That kind of help might also encourage other
Natives with similar dreams and entrepreneurial drive to seek
independent ownership of tourism business enterprises.
The majority of
tribal nations, with or without gaming, possess some form of cultural
tourism enterprise or activity-a museum, a cultural center, campsites,
reservation tours, feast days or pow wows. A few tribal nations are
committed to cultural tourism in a big way; most are less so.
Native American
cultural tourism can best be described as being in an early state of
development. The overall economic benefits of cultural tourism
received from private, Native-owned or tribally-owned businesses are
only a fraction of the revenues derived from tribal gaming.
Gaming is rapidly
changing the face of Indian country tourism. I watch primetime boxing
matches on ESPN broadcast from tribal casinos. Headline entertainment
personalities perform at tribal gaming venues. Attractive tribal spa
resorts, hotels, golf courses, restaurants and RV parks are finally
competing directly with the mainstream tourism industry.
Many tribal
gaming operations are adding visitor amenities and attractions that
contain elements of their cultures, including museums, galleries, gift
shops, tours, performances and foods. These additions will certainly
broaden their marketing appeal.
But still, people
in the world who are interested enough in Native cultures to initiate
a visit will eventually seek and find the Native entrepreneurs. The
Native owners and their families, their lands, their traditions and
their stories will continue to be the prized cultural assets of Indian
Country tourism.
Ben Sherman (Oglala
Lakota) is the president of the Denver-based Western American Indian
Chamber and is a founder of the Native Tourism Alliance
(www.indiancountry.org).
|
|
|
Some Indians
have bone to pick with Lewis & Clark
Printed in the Billings Outpost -
Tuesday, January 8, 2002
(click title to read
article from the Billings Outpost online)
TODD WILKINSON
One problem with scrutinizing history through a lens of modern
political correctness is the failure to acknowledge contexts in which
human attitudes are shaped. Stated more bluntly, people are a product
of their times.
On the other hand, society’s refusal to confront and take
responsibility for ignominious actions originating in our past – and
still with us – can conversely be a script for tragedy.
Today, Ben Sherman has a bone to pick with American history. The
focus of his animus just happens to be the growing, glowing
aggrandizement of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark.
What bugs him – and many Indians – is how society patriotically
celebrates the explorers’ exploits yet balks at seriously examining
the consequences of what happened to Native Americans in their wake.
More to the point, Sherman wants us to remember that Clark’s
crafting of U.S. Indian policy after he returned to St. Louis – and
served as governor of the Missouri Territory and superintendent of
Indian Affairs – laid the foundation for a plague of social problems,
including debilitating poverty, alcoholism and civic alienation, that
still besets First American citizens.
For the articulate, soft-spoken Sherman, the root of his contrarian
view can be traced to the final days of September 1804. It involves
part of the Lewis and Clark story that seldom gets told: a skirmish
with Sioux warriors that nearly ended the famous expedition before it
really began.
Functioning as gatekeepers for trade and access along the lower
Missouri River, the Sioux wanted the Corps of Discovery to pay a toll
for passage upstream. Lewis and Clark resisted. The Sioux insisted.
Weapons were drawn. A tense standoff ensued.
Had a battle erupted, the Lewis and Clark party, even with guns,
would doubtless have been annihilated.
Although the Indians backed down, it’s what Clark wrote indignantly
in his journal that Sherman believes echoed later in his attitude
toward Plains tribes.
Clark described Sherman’s Sioux ancestors as the “vilest miscreants
of the savage race.” And it’s Clark’s exploitation of the very people
he was charged to protect later as Indian Affairs superintendent that
leaves him a checkered historical figure and makes his noble
reputation a topic open for debate.
Sherman has a personal interest because he can trace his blood line
to a Lakota warrior named Makes The Song who was roughly 18 years old
when Lewis and Clark set out paddling.
“It is remotely possible that Makes The Song was involved in the
encounter with Lewis and Clark,” Sherman says. “But the likelihood is
that he was farther west where many of his people were. Makes The Song
and the Lakota knew about the ‘wasichu’ [Anglo-Europeans], and most
were happy to stay away from these unpleasant people.”
He adds that 73 years later the grandson of Makes The Song would
lead the last defiant band of Lakota into Fort Robinson, surrendering
their guns, horses and way of relating to the world. The name of Makes
The Song’s grandson in the year 1877: Crazy Horse.
At the time, buffalo were almost wiped out, white traders were
subduing Indians with alcohol, the 19th-century equivalent of crack;
the Black Hills had been stolen; Sitting Bull had fled to Canada; most
Indians were exiled to reservations; and the Sioux could not face
another winter in a running fight with the U.S. Army.
Sherman says 42 treaties were forced upon tribes between 1815-1830
and each treaty was broken. The historical portrayal of Clark as a
benevolent caretaker of Indians, he claims, is just not true.
“There continues to be a societal blind spot when it comes to Lewis
and Clark and Native Americans,” Sherman says, calling attention to
the recent book by historical anthropologist Anthony F.C. Wallace
titled “Jefferson and the Indians.” Wallace argues that Thomas
Jefferson’s Indian policy was tantamount to cultural genocide.
Quietly, away from the patriotic and commercial fanfare surrounding
the approaching Lewis and Clark bicentennial, Indian country is less
than enthusiastic, he says.
“The organizers of the bicentennial are telling Indians to
participate because it’s an opportunity for each tribe to tell its
story,” he says. “It’s a nice offer, but are they sincerely interested
in hearing the real story of what happened to Indian people after
Lewis and Clark came through?”
Until America comes to terms with its treatment of Indians, he
adds, the promise associated with Lewis and Clark – of building a
great nation devoted to liberty, prosperity, and respect for all –
shall remain an elusive dream. Unfulfilled.
Todd Wilkinson is a writer in Bozeman |
|
|
|
|
Other Articles
of Interest
Potawatomi Traveling Times, "Reaching out internationally," April 1, 2001.
http://www.fcpotawatomi.com/april_1_01/tourism.html
Wall Street Journal article about German Karl May's interest in American
Indians and cowboys, April 4, 2001.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3acb32d32671.htm
American Indian Report by the Falmouth Institute, article on Native
Destinations, April, 2001.
http://www.falmouthinst.com/air/air_issue.asp?pub_list=21
Indian Country Today article on Indian Tourism, October 11, 2000.
http://www.indiancountry.com/articles/headline-2000-10-11-05.shtml
|
|
|