Chief Gall and Chief John Grass: Cultural Mediators Or Sellouts?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 Chief Gall and Chief John Grass: Cultural mediators or sellouts? James R. Frank The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Frank, James R., "Chief Gall and Chief John Grass: Cultural mediators or sellouts?" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5378. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5378 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of Montana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author’s Signature: ^ p (v\NgA Date: cS^OQ ( Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author’s explicit consent. 8/98 Chief Gall and Chief John Grass: Cultural Mediators or Sellouts? by Janies R. Frank, Jr. B.Sc. North Dakota State University, 1995 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts July 2001 Approved by: Dean, Graduate School 1 - 2 3 -o < Date UMI Number: EP40842 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dfesgftstbri: Pyblisf*ig UMI EP40842 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 , Frank, James R., M.A., July 2001 History “Chief Gall and Chief John Grass: Cultural Mediators or Sell-Outs?” (267 pp.) Director: Dan L. Flores i f f ' During the late nineteenth century, the Lakota were forced to live upon reservations, where the federal government tried to turn them into self-sufficient Christian farmers and ranchers. Gall and John Grass, two late nineteenth century Lakota chiefs that were placed under the supervision of the Grand River Agency and later under the Standing Rock Agency, continuously looked after their people’s interests and helped them adapt to their new life on the reservation. Due to their opposition to the Ghost Dance, their desire to send Lakota children to school, and their roles as Justices of the Court of Indian Offenses, District Farmers, ranchers, and Christian converts, historians generally have portrayed Gall and Grass in simplistic and absolute terms as traitors and/or “progressives” who wholeheartedly abandoned the Lakota culture. In actuality, however, Gall and Grass adapted to the situation and became what we now know in more nuanced terms as cultural brokers, which enhanced their own prestige and aided their fellow Lakota. Gall and Grass only adopted those aspects of the Euro- American culture that benefited their people, while continuing to embrace the Lakota culture. For example, although Grass helped build log houses on the reservation for his followers, he built a dance hall in the center of the homes, where he led his people in various Lakota dances. Gall and Grass both supported sending their children to school because they firmly believed that the education that the Lakota children would receive would enable them to deal with whites better and would help prepare the children to compete in the new American economic system that was thrust upon them. Gall and Grass both eventually converted to Christianity because that was the only social activity allowed on the reservation. Furthermore, like the vast majority of Lakota converts, they blended Christianity with Lakota beliefs and practices. Therefore, Gall and Grass should be remembered as patriotic cultural brokers who helped their people adapt to life on the reservation rather than as traitorous “progressives.” Table of Contents Abstract Page ii Table of Contents Page iii Preface Page iv Introduction Page 1 Chapter One: Charging Bear (John Grass) and Gall: The Warriors Page 9 Chapter Two: The After-Shock of the Battle of the Little Bighorn Page 60 Chapter Three: The Edmunds and Dawes Commissions Page 105 Chapter Four: Further Adaptation to the Reservation, 1883-1887 Page 128 Chapter Five: The Sioux Act of 1889 Page 145 Chapter Six: The Ghost Dance Page 194 Chapter Seven: Gall and Grass as Christians Page 206 Chapter Eight: Gall’s Last Days Page 212 Conclusion Page 225 Bibliography Page 243 Appendix A: Photographs Page 250 Preface The primary purpose of this essay is to challenge the prevailing interpretation of John Grass and Gall as progressives rather than to provide a comprehensive biography of either man. The secondary purpose of this paper is to encourage further research on Grass, Gall, and Standing Rock Reservation. I would like to thank Dan L. Flores, Pamela Voekel, Richmond L. Clow, Carla Homstad, Henri Mann, and Dave Beck for their support and guidance. I would also like to thank my parents and my girlfriend, Petra Collins, for their moral support. iv Introduction After Christopher Columbus sailed to “India,” he wrote a letter to the people back home about his encounters with the natives. Nancy Shoemaker summarized Columbus’ descriptions in the letter by stating, “The Caribs were bloodthirsty cannibals, always attacking the Arawaks, who were simple, friendly, cowardly, and generous. The Arawaks had a specialized knowledge about their own environment, but were childlike upon encountering European technology.” Columbus’ categorization of the Arawaks as Noble Savages parallels the prevailing interpretations of Chief Gall, the nineteenth- century Uncpapa leader, and Chief John Grass, the nineteenth-century Lakota Blackfeet leader, as “progressives.” Due to their roles as Indian judges, district farmers, ranchers, supporters of Indian schools, opponents of the Ghost Dance, Christian converts, and eventual supporters of the Sioux Act of 1889, many of their contemporaries and most historians have simplistically labeled Gall and Grass as “progressives” or “white” Indians. In other words, the prevailing interpretation of the two chiefs, like Columbus’ portrayal of the Arawaks, falls prey to viewing Indians in absolute terms. In reality, life on Standing Rock reservation did not magically transform Gall or Grass into “white” men or “progressives.” Instead, they adapted to the situation and became what we now know in more nuanced terms as cultural brokers, which enhanced their own prestige and aided their fellow Lakota.1 Portraying Indians, such as Gall and Grass, as cultural brokers represents nothing new to historians. According to historian Jerry A. Davis, “In 1851, Francis Parkman’s two-volumeThe Conspiracy o f Pontiac established the pattern of Indian mediative 1 For a summary of Christopher Columbus’ letter consult Nancy Shoemaker, “Point of View,”Chronicle of Higher Learning , unknown date (Handout given by Professor Flores to the students in History 594, power.” Parkman claims that Pontiac’s charismatic personality and his ability to broker power among tribes and French settlers enabled him to control the Great Lakes region in the mid-eighteenth century. From Parkman’s work through the present, historians and ethnohistorians have commonly placed Indians within the broker-mediator framework. For example, Margaret Connell Szasz’s Between Indian and White Worlds: The Cultural Broker contains fourteen essays that all revolve around a cultural broker theme. Michael Steltenkamp’s book, Black Elk: Holy Man o f the Oglala, provides another example. Steltenkamp portrays Black Elk as a mediator who helped his people adapt to reservation life. Black Elk, a traditional holy man, became a Catholic catechist and faithfully served his people for sixty years on the reservation. The holy man, however, was not an old- time medicine man, or one who betrayed his native beliefs in favor of something completely different. Black Elk mediated between the two cultures by translating Christianity into the Lakota way of life. A few other examples of the cultural broker theme can be found in Richard White’s book, The Middle Ground, David Rich Lewis’ essay, “Reservation Leadership and the Progressive-Traditional Dichotomy: William Wash and the Northern Utes, 1865-1928,” and Darcee McLaren’s essay, “Living the Middle Ground: Two Dakota Missionaries, 1887-1912.” In fact, according to Davis, “The image of the broker-mediator has emerged as the central theme in ethnohistory.”2 University of Montana, Spring Semester, 1997). 2 Jerry A. Davis, “The ‘Cultural Broker’ in History and Ethnohistory,”Crossing in Contested Territories: Historical Essays on American Culture and the Environment, ed. M. David Key and Dedra S. McDonald (Albuquerque: Center