Reaction Post #1

I came into this course with only a vague interest in questions of American identity and values, but as the weeks have gone by, I've become increasingly engaged with the material. For one, I've been learning more about historical events in our history that I either had no idea about (the Centenniel), or others that I only had little knowledge on (Custer's Last Stand). The focus on the nuts and bolts of the culture, the collective consciousness -- things like music, popular novels, and festivals -- really puts history in a framework that reveals more about our past beyond the facts and numbers we were taught in American History classes in high school.

Another thing I've enjoyed are moments in lectures when the professor ties in something historical to something current, like echos of Lincoln in Obama's inaugral speech. Because of that sense of interconnectedness, and the interaction we've had with these concrete cultural artifacts (the "nuts and bolts"), it becomes easier to trace trends in ideologies and tastes throughout time.

My favorite lecture was probably the one on "Little Women," even though it was so short, I felt a real authenticity and insight in the analysis. I hadn't realized how much technological change could contribute to shifts in gender politics until then. I was also fascinated by Confederates in the Attic, as I had no idea that the practicioners of Civil War re-enactments were that "hardcore."

My favorite book to read so far has been Little Women. It was definitely different to read it now, as an adult, than it was fifteen or so years ago, especially knowing more about the era in which it was written. I also hadn't realized, way back when, that it was a book about manners for women. The only thing I think is interesting on that point is that Louisa May Alcott never strictly points out which girl was the BEST. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, all of them appeal in some part to young ladies, and all of them suffer and sustain in life. I think it was an interesting twist that Beth, the best model that the girls of Alcott's era were supposed to look up to, died...was it, as Professor Hass suggested, because she was too good? Was Alcott simply suggesting that it was okay to have some faults, as long as one worked to improve them?

Hopefully this class will continue to help us understand questions such as these...

So I've been thinking a lot about the last discussion (1/29) in which we talked about Killer Custer. Although I didn't love the book, I found a lot of the topics we discussed in class rather intriguing. Mostly, I have been thinking about Manifest Destiny. Although I think most people would agree that white superiority is the backbone of Manifest Destiny and Domesticity, perhaps more worthy of consideration, I pose that white supremacy may still be alive today. Before I offend anyone or over-step the boundary of that previous statement, let me explain more precisely what I mean. The first discussion question presented by Elaine and Sara was: 'Where can we see Indian cruelty in today's society?' The answer that we posed in class was that the Indians have become this extinct subject, mostly because the Indian population has either assimilated into the 'popular culture' or have become residents of the reserves. In this 'out of sight, out of mind' instance, it is hard to say exactly if there is cruelty towards Indians today. The topic in class then moved towards the benefits that Indians receive as "compensation" for the cruelty of the late 1800's. Compensation seems reasonable enough, and it doesn't necessarily scream cruelty - at first glance. But as I thought more about the "compensation" I began to realize that not much has changed. Just as the whites offered the Indians the choice of assimilation or annihilation in the time of the Indian wars, Americans are still offering Indians a similar choice: assimilation or extinction. I use the word assimilation because as I see it, the compensation that is offered to the Indians is not a gift of Indian restitution but rather the white man's restitution. We offer education and money or opportunity to make money, all things of the white man. We offer reservations. We give land, but we do not offer the freedom of the land.

So I guess all I am trying to say is this: white superiority may be a thing of the past. But have the objectives of the white man become as extinct as the topic of Indian cruelty?

I really enjoyed Killing Custer. Throughout the book I found it astonishing with how much detail Welch was able to describe not only the context of each Indian-white battle, but also the important happenings that would eventually culminate in Little Big Horn in '76. One thing that I found interesting was Welch's insight into the U.S army during the time --What made Custer a good leader? What were his shortcomings as a military leader as far as strategy (he didn't even scout the surrounding areas before his attack on southern Cheyenne leading to the massacre of Elliott's men --come on dude!), how, despite his 10 month banishment, he was reinstated and due to his usefulness to the army as a morale booster, and an interesting re-organization of army personnel following the civil war away from experienced, albeit older officers, toward brash young officers like Custer who may not have had the military mind necessary for the job and which caused dissension in his 7th unit. 

 While I, like many of you, enjoyed the book's even-handedness in showing the Indian perspective, I felt that a shortcoming of the book was Welch's occasionally over-opinionated nature. However, I understand that this may have come as the result of the author being a native himself. Overall, I enjoyed the passion with which he wrote the book, which really resonated with me the reader. By the end, I felt more knowledgeable but mostly very sympathetic to the plight of the Native Americans.

I absolutely reading Killing Custer, and I enjoyed discussing it even more. The book was easy to read through which allowed for deeper understanding of the events that were portrayed in the book. It was great that the book covered a topic that everyone in the class could relate to, which lead to involved and interesting discussions. It was interesting to hear each classmates view on the weight of all of the Native Americans killed versus those who were killed during the Holocaust. Of course there is no right or wrong answer, and there were great arguments for both sides.

I only wish we had more time to discuss some of the many hints Welch used to show his side of the story. For example, he payed a lot of attention to the faults and failings of Custer, which clearly showed that he was not for the Americans in this particular subject. Can anyone else point out anything else he says or does to give away his viewpoint?

FIRST REFLECTION POST

FIrst, I hope that this isnt considered late being on the 31st and im sorry if it is.
there have been so many good discussions and readings that i dont know where to start. I really enjoyed confederates in the attick actually. im a history buff so i liked reading about the battles and stuff like that, but the social aspect was also really interesting. I had no idea that there were so many people in the south who felt so strongly about the confederate flag. personally, i am one of the people mentined who say "you lost...get over it" and i will support that position. However, even before i read this book i knew that not every southerner who flew the falg wanted to sceed from the union, that the flag was very much a simbol of stated rights to them and not of the confederacy. what i didnt know was how many other meanings there are to the flag. there are people who feel that it still is simbolic of slavery, and others who feel that its simply and simbol of the rebelious spirit of the confederacy. perhaps most surprising of all to me though was the reaction the flag got out of some people...i didnt know that anyone felt that strongly. i simply couldnt believe that even today the flag could stir up enough emotiom to motivate someone to murder another human being.
my favorite reading though was little women. while i definately had to read through the sexism in it i tought it was simply a really good book simply for entertainment purposes. i could also appreciate how well it illustrated life in that era, or at least what life would be like idealy. some of the discussion in class surpreised me though. first, i was surprised by the varing age ranges given for what people thought the target audience was and it really showed me how differently people can interpret the same text. I wounder how differently the book read for those who thought that the target audience was say...around seventeen than for me, who though it was closer to thirteen. i was also surprised that while there were so many variations on the age of the tarfet audience everyone seemed to agree that hannah was white (or at least not black). it seemed to me that if anything would have been up for debate it would have been that and i was surprised when we all aggreed. so far i have really enjoyed our discussions and look forward to more of them. see you in section

Reflection #1

I thought the most interesting point brought up thus far in the course is how throughout all the readings we seem to use identities of others to try and find our own"identity". In the case of the Native Americans we see a flip flop, first in Playing Indian, we use the cultural aspects to show Britain that we are different, new, and no longer willing to let them rule over us. After succeeding we then decide we no longer want to work peacefully with the Natives. Killing Custer shows a more vivid side of this, where instead of praising the culture of the natives, we see them as savage and a threat that needs to be "dealt with". It seems that we used this culture and later others when its convenient to us. Then when a new threat or new ideal comes around we "dispose" of the culture and take on a new one.

Which brings me back to a topic that was brought up before in discussion, its concept being something that I agree with. However unfortunate it is that we use these cultures, its interesting to think about if we hadn't used them, where would we be today? And again it is horrible that we as Americans have done these things to others, it is really thanks to these cultures that we are where we are today. The real trick is now that we know what has happened and our trends are we as Americans going to break this cycle or like before continue to use others and dispose of them at will?

Controversial Issues

I felt that our last discussion section contained some of the most interesting topics to date. One of the most fascinating topics to me was the compensation given to those with a Native American ancestry. While controversial, it appears to me that this is something that may never come to a definitive solution, making it all the more interesting to talk about. We discussed how monetarily compensating Native Americans can be seen as almost negative, attempting to place a value on the suffering they incurred. While I somewhat agree, we as a nation are in a difficult place. It is clear that there is nothing we can really do that will change the atrocities that occurred. There is no "undo". That being said, one of the most important actions should be to educate children in depth about what really occurred. Beyond that however, I see no way other than monetary compensation to even attempt to make amends for what we as a nation have done. Also, it should be taken into consideration that this contribution is really intended repayment for the land and resources that we took from the native Americans, rather than direct compensation for their suffering.

I also found the conversation about early education significant. I believe that there are several considerations that must be taken when determining what is an appropriate age to educate children on particularly sensitive or graphic topics. First, we should not underestimate our youth. Often I believe that we wrongly assume children will be incapable of understanding something or that they are too young, when in reality they have likely already been exposed to similar content through television, etc. However, there is one idea not discussed in class that I felt was very important. There are many issues that can be discussed and understood on a basic level, however are in reality very complex and may have dimensions that a younger child simply cannot understand. Take for example the discussion of the holocaust we had. On surface level it is not hard to explain the events that occurred in Germany during WWII. However, a young child may understand at a basic level and at the same time not fully grasp what was going on or make false connections. For example, something that does not necessarily bother me (as my family was there at the time) but I see frequently is the connection that Germany was evil and responsible for what occurred, rather than Hitler's regime. Many people that have not been fully educated on the topic fail to realize that it was a small group of people that forced their beliefs on a nation who are responsible for what occurred. Many, if not the majority of German people were equally disgusted with Hitler's policies. At that time, an individual had no choice but to go along with the policies enacted. Many adults were drafted and forced into service for the Nazi party, and had to fight and die for something they didn't believe in. Many, many non-Jewish Germans were jailed and killed for offenses as minor as listening to the wrong radio station. There was a great deal of suffering occurring outside of the concentration camps, and without the proper education and thorough understanding misinterpretations are easily made. Therefore, we must take into account the complexity of each issue before deciding when an appropriate time to begin a child's education on the subject is.

In discussion we talked about where/how different education systems teach about subjects such as the Holocaust and the battle of Little Bighorn. I definitely agree that schools ought to start educating children at a younger age about such 'unpleasant' realities of the past. I believe, even at a very young age, children have the capacity to understand the implications behind such events. In elementary school, I had a teacher who taught extensively on the Holocaust, and it completely opened my eyes to something I couldn't have even fathomed to exist. I wondered how such atrocities could have occurred; yet, I was completely oblivious to the genocide of the Indians. In fact, in elementary school I never really even thought about real, live Native Americans. I only thought of them as something of the past (just as the exterminators of the Indians intended to do- make Indians a part of the past and further, to write it in history in a way to perpetuate this idea).

It is also true that schools teach by the government standards of which history books are written by the 'white man'. In truth, I didn't really know anything about Custer and the battle of Little Bighorn. To me, it was buried under all the other dates and battles I had vaguely been introduced to in middle/high school. If I had learned about it in the way the book "Killing Custer" had rendered it, it definitely would have been an unforegettable event in my mind. Again, children should be taught about such important subjects at an earlier age. With that, they can grow to better understand the implications and repercussions behind these events, not only of which occurred in the past but are sadly still present in modern day.

I agree that "Killing Custer" was a great book.  It was nice to learn about Native Americans from the perspective of a native himself.  Welch also does a great job of telling the story of the Indian wars without sugar coating it.  Although I feel that he is opinionated at times, I think it works for the book because the emotion that he puts into his writing shows how passionate he is about the topic and allows the reader to feel more connected in a personal way.  

I like how all of our readings seem to tie together.  They all seem to be about extremely different subjects yet once you see how they tie together it makes perfect sense.  During the part in "Killing Custer" when Welch goes to find the bend in the Marias river where the Battle of the Marias occurred, I couldn't help but remember back to Tony Horowitz when he visited the battle sites of the Civil War (particularly Shiloh).  Both men seemed to put themselves back in time to the actual battles that occurred at the sites and also seemed to feel connected to the sites themselves because of their relatives.  

Another part I liked about the book was the pictures because I think that the illustrations/pictures allow the reader to get a good perspective of what the cultural ideals of that time were (eg the illustrations glorifying Custer and various other generals while making the indians look like savages).  On page 88 there are two pictures of Red Cloud, one in his traditional indian attire, and one where he is dressed in "white man" clothes.  These pictures deeply affected me because he looked so strikingly different.  I also knew that by changing his clothes he was not only changing his outward appearance, but also his way of life by assimilating to the white man's culture.

Another thing I found astonishing and almost comical was the fact that many of the generals who fought during the Indian Wars and the Civil War was that they were glorified both then and now, but a number of them were actually drunk during battle!  (such as Baker)  These generals were sometimes so drunk that they didn't even recognize that a battle was going on around them.  Just think about what a controversy it would be today if a military official or officer was drunk while fighting in battle.

Killing Custer reflection

I also thought this book was a really interesting and great book for us to read. I liked hearing the other side of the story because I knew Native Americans were oppressed and killed but I was not aware of the extent. Even taking AP history in high school I don't recall learning about their side of the story and how much we abused them.
I found it interesting how some schools teach their students one side and not the other. I do think it is very important for us to know our history, even if it does not make our country look good. I'm from Farmington Hills (where the Holocaust memorial that someone was talking about is) and during my senior year of high school we had an interdisciplinary study througout my school on genocide. I was on the newspaper staff and we made a 60 page magazine on various genocides. Our oppression of the Native Americans was included. I learned a lot about not just Native Americans, but other genocides I was not even aware of. While I'm glad I learned this information because I think it made me more aware of injustices around the world, I do think I could have learned it before my senior year. I wish I had been educated earlier on these topics and I think it is important for younger students to learn the information I did.
I am reading the book for our upcoming discussion and it also talks about what should be taught in schools and which side of the story should be told. I think it is absolutely important for both sides of the story to be sold, not just the side that makes America look good. And younger students should know both sides too.

I really liked “Killing Custer” because it was an interesting combination of actual historical facts intertwined with the personal connections and stories of the author, James Welch. His portrayal of the Indian Wars and the Native American genocide was horribly sad but eye-opening at the same time. I think the book really helped to expose the other side of the Indian Wars and the truth that has been pushed under the rug for a long time.

During our discussion section I thought it was interesting to hear everyone’s past educational experiences in regards to Native Americans. It seemed that the general consensus was that most predominantly white schools failed to fully educate their students on the true nature of the Indian Wars and the extent of the genocide that occurred. However, I really started thinking when one of the girls in our class said that her predominantly black school had no issue with telling the students exactly what happened and how the Native Americans were almost wiped out by the rest of the Americans. It seems that white people today still associate themselves with the Americans of that time period, and don’t want to publicize what actually happened because they have some type of guilt carried over. However, other racial groups who don’t relate to Custer and the Americans during that era, tell the true story without brushing over the real details. Unfortunately it seems that there is a trend in the United States of trying to downplay our ugly past, including the Native American genocide, slavery, the Japanese internment camps, and countless other instances. I think it is time that we accept our past and stop pretending it didn't happen. We need to start educating our youth about our country's REAL history, regardless if it makes us feel uncomfortable or not.

Killing Custer Reflection

First off, I enjoyed “Killing Custer” a great deal. Welch’s righting style and the stories told by the Indian’s point of view were very captivating and heartbreaking. It really shed a lot of light on the incidents and massacres that occurred during the Indian wars. What I found intriguing was how pushed aside the Indian stories were during this time and even in today’s society.

When reading the numbers of how 6 million Indians inhabited the contiguous United States when Columbus arrived and by 1900, less than 250,000 thousand remained, I couldn’t help but think of the World War Two genocide. I realize that the Indian Wars were a “War”, but it is hard to believe that the white men at the time merely wanted to be victorious. Throughout the book, people of high power used words such as Annihilate to describe how they wanted the Indians to be dealt with. Also, on multiple occasions, the whites wouldn’t make a treaty with the Indians because they knew they would just wipe them out of the territory such as the Black Hills.

I also found it interesting that there were multiple Indian groups that took different sides of the issues. From growing up and learning about the Indian wars in public school, I imagined that all of the Indians were working together to fight back against the incoming whites. What I learned from reading the book was that there were tribes that tried to work with the whites through treaties, tribes that didn’t want any part of American treaties and wanted to be left alone (Sitting Bull), and Indians that even worked a long side the whites such as Custer’s scouts.

Killing Custer Reflection

James Welch illuminates the history of the Indian Wars through his own eyes as well as historical facts.  This portrayal of the Indian people allows, at least for me, (a person with an inept grasp on the history of the Native American people) to grovel with this painful 'white' past.  I found this reading to be informative both in the way it captured the historical events and its unbiased tone, allowing the reader to form their own intellect regarding the Indian Wars.  

I wanted to comment on a point I found really interesting in discussion.  On the topic of how our educational systems have taught us about the Indian Wars, one person who was educated in a predominately black school spoke up and said her teacher did not sugar coat these wars because they were acts committed by the white people.  I found this comment interesting for two reasons.  Coming from a predominate white school, myself, my teacher's did withhold parts of the truth about factual historical events, and I feel as though I have been lied to.  Also, it makes me think about how racial groups don't have a problem revealing acts of wrongdoings of groups outside their own, but when it comes to their own mistakes, they are quietly brushed under the rug.  

As I was reading "Killing Custer," I too found difficulty tying together this book and the title for the week, "White City/White Nation."  After lecture and discussion, I realized that Professor Hass, wanted us to connect the idea of Manifest Destiny, conjured by the white people, and how this 'god given right' affected our country and those present at the time.  

White City/White Nation Reflection

I honestly enjoyed reading Killing Custer. It was nice to get Welch's objective research at the same time as his subjective viewpoints. When Professor Hass talked about Chicago in lecture and the World's Fair, I had a hard time making the initial connection between Custer and Chicago history. I realized that the title of this week's lectures says it all: White City/White Nation.

Custer was the embodiment of the American desire to fulfill Manifest Destiny, to overtake the country and 'utilize' the land in what they thought was a better fashion than how the Indians were utilizing it. The white race had power over the Indians because they outnumbered the Indians. Custer symbolized this ideal to the American people, who relished the idea of 'white' as virtuous, whether consciously or not. For example, I don't know if the architects of Chicago before the World's Fair purposely made the buildings white as a symbol of white power, but the fact is that what was conveyed by the white theme of a rising city was white power. American ideals were deeply affected by Custer and what he meant to Manifest Destiny.

And for anyone who's interested in Chicago during the Colombian Exposition of 1893, read The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson. It is about the architects of the fair intertwined with the story of a serial killer, and I thought it was a very interesting book.