The massacre at wounded knee
In this assignment, we read multiple primary sources and watched a video to glean information on the Massacre (or Battle) of Wounded Knee. Then, we wrote an unbiased textbook account attempting to give a broad overview of the event. Lastly, we wrote an analysis of a Hollywood film, Bury My Heart at Wounded at Wounded Knee. Below are both of these assignments.
The Massacre of Wounded Knee
The United States government had troubles with expansion and keeping its people happy, and the Indians were made to suffer for this. According to the army general in charge of the area, Nelson A. Miles, treaties promised land and ample resources to the Indians so that they could become self-sufficient and farm, but the government didn't allocate enough resources or land to make this possible. This led to much dissatisfaction throughout the Indian population, made to live on poor land in reservations.
Meanwhile, Indians created a religion called the Ghost Dance movement. They believed that Jesus Christ would come back as an Indian to save them if they practiced an ancient Ghost Dance ritual. The Ghost Dance is a traditional circle dance that was reinvented for this new religion. White settlers and soldiers in the area perceived these rituals as resistance and a threat to their safety, as it was a religion foreign to them.
The U.S. army in the area sent out 500 men under Colonel James W. Forsyth to disarm the Lakota Sioux at a camp near Wounded Knee Creek. A few of the Sioux there resisted and wanted to keep their weapons. The conflict escalated and a shot was fired. Some reports claim that a few hotheaded soldiers fired the first shots, while others claim that an Indian, Black Coyote, was at the center of the conflict after refusing to have his weapon taken. The soldiers then went around the camp, shooting any Indians that they could find. They chased Indians up a ravine, slaughtering fleeing men, women, and children.
The army lost 31 men at the massacre. On the contrary, 300 Indians were killed, women and children making up a large portion. In the aftermath of the massacre, civilians were hired to bury the dead Indians. Colonel Forsyth was relieved of duty by General Miles, but reinstated after further examination by the government. The overall reaction of the American public was positive toward the "battle", with L. Frank Baum notably calling for the total extermination of the Indian people.
The United States government had troubles with expansion and keeping its people happy, and the Indians were made to suffer for this. According to the army general in charge of the area, Nelson A. Miles, treaties promised land and ample resources to the Indians so that they could become self-sufficient and farm, but the government didn't allocate enough resources or land to make this possible. This led to much dissatisfaction throughout the Indian population, made to live on poor land in reservations.
Meanwhile, Indians created a religion called the Ghost Dance movement. They believed that Jesus Christ would come back as an Indian to save them if they practiced an ancient Ghost Dance ritual. The Ghost Dance is a traditional circle dance that was reinvented for this new religion. White settlers and soldiers in the area perceived these rituals as resistance and a threat to their safety, as it was a religion foreign to them.
The U.S. army in the area sent out 500 men under Colonel James W. Forsyth to disarm the Lakota Sioux at a camp near Wounded Knee Creek. A few of the Sioux there resisted and wanted to keep their weapons. The conflict escalated and a shot was fired. Some reports claim that a few hotheaded soldiers fired the first shots, while others claim that an Indian, Black Coyote, was at the center of the conflict after refusing to have his weapon taken. The soldiers then went around the camp, shooting any Indians that they could find. They chased Indians up a ravine, slaughtering fleeing men, women, and children.
The army lost 31 men at the massacre. On the contrary, 300 Indians were killed, women and children making up a large portion. In the aftermath of the massacre, civilians were hired to bury the dead Indians. Colonel Forsyth was relieved of duty by General Miles, but reinstated after further examination by the government. The overall reaction of the American public was positive toward the "battle", with L. Frank Baum notably calling for the total extermination of the Indian people.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee Analysis
Film versions of history vary greatly in terms of reliability, but lately filmmakers have been trying to keep historical facts intact while still bringing an exciting story to the public. This is a crucial part of history; more than the facts and death tolls, the textbook history, the public should know about the stories and realize that there were actual people involved in the battles that we read about. For me, it was more impactful to watch actual people (though they were Hollywood actors) go through the struggles that our ancestors went through in 1890. Of course, facts were skewed in the film to make the narrative more powerful and actual events were portrayed very differently. Even though historically based Hollywood movies tend to have inaccuracies, films like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee should continue to be produced, in order to bring history to life in a way that is accessible to most Americans.
One aspect of the movie that I think could have been changed to fit history is the fact that there was a ravine by the camp where the Sioux were. This would not have been difficult for the filmmakers to do, and the scene of Indians trying to flee up the ravine would have been immensely powerful. Black Elk, a first-hand witness, writes: "It was one long grave of butchered women and children and babies, who had never done any harm and were only trying to run away." The filmmakers should have made the landscape historically accurate, and there was not much of an excuse not to do so. Though the scene of the massacre was still very powerful, primary sources illustrate the most potent scene being the one of the long ravine filled with Indian bodies. It was disappointing to see the movie makers eliminate one of the most powerful tools at their disposal and not follow the history in this case.
Another inaccuracy in the film was the portrayal of Nelson A. Miles. Though he was a United States military general, he was also a friend of the Indians, as shown by what he wrote in one of his reports to Washington: "The forcing process of attempting to make large bodies of Indians self-sustaining... is one cause of the difficulty." He also states that "failure of the government to issue to such Indians the full number of cows and oxen" was one of the causes. Of course, he was still a military official and had to fight many battles against Sitting Bull. However, he thought of the Indians as people and this is not very well portrayed in the movie. To me, he seems like one of the typical 'bad guys', who doesn't understand the Indians and gives them a hard time. I think that this is good for character development, but a more accurate Nelson A. Miles would have been constantly asking his superiors for more food and oxen so that the Indians could live on the reservation in more bearable conditions.
The most obvious inaccuracy in the film, however, was the death of Sitting Bull. The mercurial leader of the Sioux, who had led his people through countless battles, died a week before Wounded Knee happened, while the movie portrayed these two happening simultaneously. However, this is more acceptable than the other two mistakes because it adds to the conflict and allows the filmmakers to better portray who Sitting Bull was and his internal struggle. If they had Sitting Bull die earlier than Wounded Knee, like in real life, the whole speech and scene with him and Red Cloud couldn't have happened and would have made the plot suffer. It would be great to be historically accurate in the film, but when the plot has to suffer for it, Hollywood cannot be perfectly factually correct. For this reason, it is acceptable for movies to skew facts like these, as long as it is necessary for character development and plot.
Movies can never replace firsthand accounts for research purposes, but they are a fantastic way to make information accessible and viewable for the general public. Here in America, we watch TV much more than we read. By creating historical movies with powerful narratives that portray actual events, Hollywood can spark normal people with interest in the fascinating stories all throughout history, breaking away from the James Bond and the chick flick to educate the public in a fun, engaging manner. Even considering the gaps and inaccuracies in the movie, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee recreates a story from history to show the general public a new, human version of the story.
Film versions of history vary greatly in terms of reliability, but lately filmmakers have been trying to keep historical facts intact while still bringing an exciting story to the public. This is a crucial part of history; more than the facts and death tolls, the textbook history, the public should know about the stories and realize that there were actual people involved in the battles that we read about. For me, it was more impactful to watch actual people (though they were Hollywood actors) go through the struggles that our ancestors went through in 1890. Of course, facts were skewed in the film to make the narrative more powerful and actual events were portrayed very differently. Even though historically based Hollywood movies tend to have inaccuracies, films like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee should continue to be produced, in order to bring history to life in a way that is accessible to most Americans.
One aspect of the movie that I think could have been changed to fit history is the fact that there was a ravine by the camp where the Sioux were. This would not have been difficult for the filmmakers to do, and the scene of Indians trying to flee up the ravine would have been immensely powerful. Black Elk, a first-hand witness, writes: "It was one long grave of butchered women and children and babies, who had never done any harm and were only trying to run away." The filmmakers should have made the landscape historically accurate, and there was not much of an excuse not to do so. Though the scene of the massacre was still very powerful, primary sources illustrate the most potent scene being the one of the long ravine filled with Indian bodies. It was disappointing to see the movie makers eliminate one of the most powerful tools at their disposal and not follow the history in this case.
Another inaccuracy in the film was the portrayal of Nelson A. Miles. Though he was a United States military general, he was also a friend of the Indians, as shown by what he wrote in one of his reports to Washington: "The forcing process of attempting to make large bodies of Indians self-sustaining... is one cause of the difficulty." He also states that "failure of the government to issue to such Indians the full number of cows and oxen" was one of the causes. Of course, he was still a military official and had to fight many battles against Sitting Bull. However, he thought of the Indians as people and this is not very well portrayed in the movie. To me, he seems like one of the typical 'bad guys', who doesn't understand the Indians and gives them a hard time. I think that this is good for character development, but a more accurate Nelson A. Miles would have been constantly asking his superiors for more food and oxen so that the Indians could live on the reservation in more bearable conditions.
The most obvious inaccuracy in the film, however, was the death of Sitting Bull. The mercurial leader of the Sioux, who had led his people through countless battles, died a week before Wounded Knee happened, while the movie portrayed these two happening simultaneously. However, this is more acceptable than the other two mistakes because it adds to the conflict and allows the filmmakers to better portray who Sitting Bull was and his internal struggle. If they had Sitting Bull die earlier than Wounded Knee, like in real life, the whole speech and scene with him and Red Cloud couldn't have happened and would have made the plot suffer. It would be great to be historically accurate in the film, but when the plot has to suffer for it, Hollywood cannot be perfectly factually correct. For this reason, it is acceptable for movies to skew facts like these, as long as it is necessary for character development and plot.
Movies can never replace firsthand accounts for research purposes, but they are a fantastic way to make information accessible and viewable for the general public. Here in America, we watch TV much more than we read. By creating historical movies with powerful narratives that portray actual events, Hollywood can spark normal people with interest in the fascinating stories all throughout history, breaking away from the James Bond and the chick flick to educate the public in a fun, engaging manner. Even considering the gaps and inaccuracies in the movie, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee recreates a story from history to show the general public a new, human version of the story.