• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. UniversiV M io d ilm s International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WCl R 4EJ, ENGLAND 7 9 1 1 1 5 4 HOLM, THOMAS MARK INDIANS AND PROGRESSIVES: FROM VANISHING POLICY ID THE INDIAN NEW DEAL. THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, P H . D . , 1 9 7 8 UniversiN M icnxilms International s o o n , z e e b r o a d , a n n a r b o r . M u s i o e 0 1979 THOMAS MARK HOLM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOM GRADUATE COLLEGE INDIANS M D PROGRESSIVES: FROM VANISHING POLICY TO THE INDIAN NEW DEAL A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY [ by TOM KOLI'I Chelsea, Oklahoma 1978 INDIANS AND PROGRESSIVES: FROM VANISHING POLICY TO THE INDIAN NEW DEAL A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPAHTMxENT OF HISTORY BY: A—— j-x- — Z 7 — PREFACE In the 1880*s and 1890's the United States launched an all-out effort to solve the "Indian problem." Under the rhe­ torical ideal of assimilation the government provided for the allotment of tribal lands in severalty, banned Native American ceremonies, urged Indians to cast off tribal dress in favor of "conventional" clothing, and took children from the reserva­ tions to boarding schools in order to remove them from "savage influences." By the 1930*s, however, the government had reversed most of these policies. Day schools on the reservations had been established, allotment had ceased, and Native Americans were urged to maintain tribal dress, customs and ceremonies. If this "Indian New Deal" did nothing else, it at least allowed Indians to be "Indian." Indian policy in the 1930’s reflected changes in white attitudes toward Native Americans. Many whites, in the late nineteenth century, firmly believed that all aspects of tribal cultures must be destroyed so that Indians would "progress" toward civilization. But by the time of the New Deal a number of white Americans justly believed that many features of Indian life "never stood in the path of progress." Some whites, includ­ ing the principle policy-maker of the Indian New Deal, John iii iv Collier, even thought that non-Indians could learn and thus benefit from Native American lifestyles. These new attitudes did not spring up overnight. In fact they were born in turmoil and in the reassessment of mainstream American social thought. During the first twenty years of the new century, Native Americans survived the almost overwhelming push to force them to vanish as culturally viable peoples. Not only that, but some whites began to take notice of this survival and appreciate the aesthetic and practical values of Indian artistic and intellectual achievement. This appreciation sparked a good deal of conflict between those persons who had worked toward the goal of complete assimilation of Indians and the people who wished to preserve Indian cultures. The turmoil created ambivalence and with it the breakdown of the "vanishing policy." The Progressive Era in Indian-white rela­ tions was not a clear watershed in the history of American Indian policy. It was, however, a period of conflict which cleared the way for the changes of the late 1920’s and the 1930’s. This study is an interpretation of how American attitudes toward Native Americans slowly changed and brought about the move from a vanishing policy to the Indian New Deal. It is a history of an era of reassessment and of people going through the pro­ cess of change. It is also, hopefully, a tribute to the survival and cultural integrity of our Indian people. Since undertaking this project I have received aid and advice from sone of the finest scholars in the United States. I would like to thank, in particular, the members of my graduate V committee; Professors Arrell M. Gibson, H. Wayne Morgan, Norman Crockett and Jon Spurgeon for their valuable assis­ tance. Their ideas and time spent in helping me prepare this manuscript are greatly appreciated. I would like to express my gratitude to my friend and colleague at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Professor Reginald Horsman, for the en­ couragement, insight and support he gave me during the writing phase of this project. A special thanks goes to Professor Francis Paul Prucha, S. J. of Marquette University, who lent his time and numerous skills toward the completion of this effort. I am very thankful for the advice received from Profes­ sor Hazel W. Hertzberg of Columbia University and Professor Donald J. Berthrong of Purdue, and I would also like to express my appreciation to Professor Frederick E. Hoxie for sending me a copy of his pioneering interpretation of this crucial period in the history of American Indian policy. I would like to thank those people who aided me during the research phase of this study. I am indebted to the staffs of the National Anthropological Archives at the Smithsonian Institute, the Library of Congress, the Oklahoma Historical Society, and the University of Wisconsin Rare Book Collection. I am especially grateful for the friendship and the help of H. Glenn Jordan, now of the Oklahoma State Library system, who found many important items of interest for me during his tenure at the Western History Collections at the University of Oklahoma. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Ford VI Foundation which financed my graduate education under its Doctoral Fellowship program for American Indian students. Moral support in the undertaking of a project like this is as welcome as financial aid. For this I would like to thank several members of the Indian communities in both Oklahoma and Wisconsin. I wish to express my graditude to John BoatmanI Irene and Wallace Pyawasit and Lee Thundercloud of Wisconsin and to Jerry C. Bread, Jack I. Miles and Ron Lewis of Oklahoma. Their ideas and encouragement are greatly appre­ ciated. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Ina, without whom nothing would have been accomplished. IN MEvlORY OF MY MOTHER vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE............................................. iii Chapter I. THE ASSAULT ON NATIVE A^iERICAN CULTURE; INDIAN POLICY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ................ 1 II. SURVIVAL: CHARLES EASTMAN, LAURA CORNELIUS KELLOGG, REDBIRD SMITH AT® THE PERPETUATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN I D E A L S ..................... 32 III. ADAPTATION; THE CONTINUITY OF NATIVE AIvlERIGAN CEREMONY AND C U S T O M ........................... 6? IV. INNOVATION AND PATRONAGE; THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIVE AI-IERICAN A R T .......................... $4 V. PROGRESSIVE AIvlBIGUITY; INDIANS AND AIŒRICAN SOCIAL THOUGHT 1900-1920 ...................... 12? VI. "THE GREAT CONFUSION IN INDIAN POLICIES" 1900- 1 9 2 4 ............................... 164 VII. AN END TO AMBIVALENCE; JOHN COLLIER AND INDIAN REFORiyi 1 9 2 2 -1 9 3.............................. 4 201 CONCLUSION ......................................... 224 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... 229 Vlll CHAPTER I THE ASSAULT ON NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE: INDIAN POLICY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY By 1900 most whites in the United States "believed that American Indians, as a distinct social group, were in the pro­ cess of vanishing from the face of the earth. Despite the results of the census of I89O, which enumerated more Indians than ever before, and an interesting but little-known article published in the Arena magazine, v;ritten in I896 to dispel this idea, the myth persisted, grew and eventually became gospel to the vast majority of white Americans.^ On the whole, the myth was easy for them to accept. They thought that Indian culture and life styles were both "primitive" and incapable of adapting to a fast-growing, industrial and urban society. Many believed "Qiat Native Americans were racially inferior and doomed geneti­ cally through intermarriage with other races or from disease. In addition, their government had been pursuing a "vanishing" policy for over a century.

Load more

  256

Copy Link