Project Description
For this mini-project, we were given an abundant amount of primary and secondary source documents about the events of Wounded Knee and what lead up to them as well as what happened afterwards. After analyzing all these documents, we had to write a textbook passage explaining what happened and why at Wounded Knee Creek Dec. 29 1890. The challenge in this was making it brief as well as un-biased as possible while still providing the necessary information required to understand the events. After writing these passages, we watched the HBO film version of the book, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown. Having watched the movie and reading many sources about Wounded Knee, we now had to write an essay analyzing the film in comparison to the primary source documents and answer a question about how film can teach us about history.
Textbook Passage
December 29, 1890 is the date of the Wounded Knee Massacre; a battle by some accounts and a slaughter by others. In keeping with Manifest Destiny and the prerogatives of white America at the time, the U.S. Army was charged with the task of securing the frontier so that white settlers, famers and gold miners could make use of the land without facing Native resistance. As a result, the joining up of rebellious Indians (Sitting Bull’s people) with other Natives of Big Foot’s band alerted the Army and was a cause for heightened anxiety and awareness among troops. This, coupled with the already defeated 7th Calvary, and superstition surrounding the Ghost Dance, made for a hyper vigilant and agitated troop of soldiers. While the U.S. Army was covering ground in search for remaining Natives, the few that remained free of reservation life and captivity were starving and freezing in the Badlands. With little options left, the few Natives from Big Foot’s band found themselves amongst the people of Sitting Bull.
In the days leading up to Wounded Knee, the 7th Calvary had assisted in escorting the people of both Sitting Bull and Big Foot into the Pine Ridge Reservation. Some of the Indians during this transportation strongly resisted being moved into reservations and broke off to roam the Badlands. This was viewed as an action of hostility by the U.S. Army and the fleeing Natives were deemed dangerous. This group of roughly over 300 Natives were then met again by U.S. forces and surrendered willingly to be taken back to Pine Ridge. On the way back to Pine Ridge, the soldiers forced encampment at Wounded Knee creek on the night of December 28th, 1890. The Natives at this point were starving and freezing and had little provisions to spare while the soldiers had the opposite. The men were separated from their families and tipis. On the morning of December 29th, an attempt to disarm all the Natives of firearms had gone underway. After exhausting the encampment of weaponry, the army then started to take the personal weapons from the hands of the Natives.
Stories and disputes of who fired first begin after this moment. It is commonly stated that a deaf Native by the name of Black Coyote misunderstood the orders to give up arms and resisted when soldiers tried to take away his rifle. This struggle resulted in the firearm discharging, causing the U.S. soldiers to open fire immediately as they feared it was an act of rebellion. By other accounts, the firing started after a Native medicine man had started the Ghost Dance in plain sight to the soldiers, seemingly to distract them. This allowed for a few Natives to pull out weapons hidden beneath blankets and to open fire on their inspectors. Whoever it was that fired the initial shot, it can be said with confidence that the U.S. Army reacted beyond all reason in that they killed not only mostly unarmed men, but also as many women and children. The scene of this struggle is unfair not only in the sense that the Natives were outnumbered but that their camps were inside a ravine while the soldiers were positioned on top. This allowed for them to set up multiple Hotchkiss guns ready to open fire on the Natives below, should the need arise. After the first shot rang out, the ravine was a flurry of smoke and snow as shooting could be heard throughout the area. Hotchkiss guns and handheld rifles alike were being fired consistently and amongst the confusion, it is often said that the majority of wounds suffered by the troops were in fact brought upon by their fellow soldiers who had shot at the wrong target.
On the grand scale of things, the Massacre of Wounded Knee happened simply because the U.S. wanted to expand on their territory and relocate the Native population to reservations. However, after taking a closer look at this even specifically, it is apparent that there were many factors leading up Wounded Knee such as tribal leaders falling ill, the rise the Ghost Dance, the general confusion of the era (to tribes and troops alike), and widespread fear of the opposing force on both sides. The event of the Wounded Knee Massacre was the last conflict between the U.S. Army and Natives and remains so to this day.
In the days leading up to Wounded Knee, the 7th Calvary had assisted in escorting the people of both Sitting Bull and Big Foot into the Pine Ridge Reservation. Some of the Indians during this transportation strongly resisted being moved into reservations and broke off to roam the Badlands. This was viewed as an action of hostility by the U.S. Army and the fleeing Natives were deemed dangerous. This group of roughly over 300 Natives were then met again by U.S. forces and surrendered willingly to be taken back to Pine Ridge. On the way back to Pine Ridge, the soldiers forced encampment at Wounded Knee creek on the night of December 28th, 1890. The Natives at this point were starving and freezing and had little provisions to spare while the soldiers had the opposite. The men were separated from their families and tipis. On the morning of December 29th, an attempt to disarm all the Natives of firearms had gone underway. After exhausting the encampment of weaponry, the army then started to take the personal weapons from the hands of the Natives.
Stories and disputes of who fired first begin after this moment. It is commonly stated that a deaf Native by the name of Black Coyote misunderstood the orders to give up arms and resisted when soldiers tried to take away his rifle. This struggle resulted in the firearm discharging, causing the U.S. soldiers to open fire immediately as they feared it was an act of rebellion. By other accounts, the firing started after a Native medicine man had started the Ghost Dance in plain sight to the soldiers, seemingly to distract them. This allowed for a few Natives to pull out weapons hidden beneath blankets and to open fire on their inspectors. Whoever it was that fired the initial shot, it can be said with confidence that the U.S. Army reacted beyond all reason in that they killed not only mostly unarmed men, but also as many women and children. The scene of this struggle is unfair not only in the sense that the Natives were outnumbered but that their camps were inside a ravine while the soldiers were positioned on top. This allowed for them to set up multiple Hotchkiss guns ready to open fire on the Natives below, should the need arise. After the first shot rang out, the ravine was a flurry of smoke and snow as shooting could be heard throughout the area. Hotchkiss guns and handheld rifles alike were being fired consistently and amongst the confusion, it is often said that the majority of wounds suffered by the troops were in fact brought upon by their fellow soldiers who had shot at the wrong target.
On the grand scale of things, the Massacre of Wounded Knee happened simply because the U.S. wanted to expand on their territory and relocate the Native population to reservations. However, after taking a closer look at this even specifically, it is apparent that there were many factors leading up Wounded Knee such as tribal leaders falling ill, the rise the Ghost Dance, the general confusion of the era (to tribes and troops alike), and widespread fear of the opposing force on both sides. The event of the Wounded Knee Massacre was the last conflict between the U.S. Army and Natives and remains so to this day.
Passage Reflection
Perhaps the most difficult part of this assignment was aligning all the sources in a timeline-like way so that it was much easier to recount the events of wounded knee. I found that really only a few of the sources we got were needed to write this instead of the dozen we got. I found it particularly interesting to read the first hand accounts. While all the ones from the Natives viewpoint were relatively similar, it was the one that was from the soldier of the 7th Calvary that really captured my attention. The simple fact that his account of events was so radically different from anything else I had ever heard was astonishing. Until I read that source, I had just assumed that it was common knowledge to everyone that Wounded Knee was a general over-play by the US and that the Native’s weren't at 100% fault. What this soldier said completely contradicts that because he says that not only did the natives open fire first but that not a single soul belonging to any squad (whatever they were called) at the time and place of Wounded Knee was intoxicated or inebriated in any way except for perhaps fatigue and cold. Because he says that the natives opened fire first, he is resting all the blame on them and not the soldiers. To him it was an act of self defense. This is actually quite understandable as the heat of battle often sends ones mind into a jumble of thoughts and they cant really make sense of the whole situation. With the likelihood of that on top of the fact that it was cold and probably wet, and that the soldier was recalling these events nearly 40 years after they had happened, I come to the conclusion that this fascinating letter could be used for the extraction of facts about what happened during the chaos but not about what caused this chaos and how messy it really all was. The rewarding part of this assignment was simply just reading the passage out loud to myself. While it is short, I still found it somewhat comforting in a way to have all this information presented to me in a manner that did not require me to blow a fuse in my brain to understand it all.
While I tried to keep my personal bias out of the passage as much as possible, I’m sure that it still shines through in a few areas. I especially see it towards the end when I say that it can be said without a doubt that the army over-reacted to whatever it was that caused the battle to begin. I have never really taken the side of the white guys simply because we are so ignorant in situations and time periods like this one and I think that definitely shows a little bit. The experience of writing this has greatly improved my understanding of how history is studied. The amount of detail work that has to be done to produce a measly textbook passage is boggling when compared to an entire textbook or documentary on a subject. Just imagine how much time was put into making those accurate yet unattached sources! While I knew that history was a complex thing in general, I had no idea that in order to make one good secondary source, you had to read and dissect a million primary sources and mash them all together in a way that makes sense. The art of storytelling is a fascinating way to preserve history, but it really only shows one side or limited views of events. The same could be said about white guy writing as we tend to want to make ourselves look good for the history books. Taking both of these sources and creating a “neutral” source is a process that I never knew existed and that I imagine I will be using again in the future.
While I tried to keep my personal bias out of the passage as much as possible, I’m sure that it still shines through in a few areas. I especially see it towards the end when I say that it can be said without a doubt that the army over-reacted to whatever it was that caused the battle to begin. I have never really taken the side of the white guys simply because we are so ignorant in situations and time periods like this one and I think that definitely shows a little bit. The experience of writing this has greatly improved my understanding of how history is studied. The amount of detail work that has to be done to produce a measly textbook passage is boggling when compared to an entire textbook or documentary on a subject. Just imagine how much time was put into making those accurate yet unattached sources! While I knew that history was a complex thing in general, I had no idea that in order to make one good secondary source, you had to read and dissect a million primary sources and mash them all together in a way that makes sense. The art of storytelling is a fascinating way to preserve history, but it really only shows one side or limited views of events. The same could be said about white guy writing as we tend to want to make ourselves look good for the history books. Taking both of these sources and creating a “neutral” source is a process that I never knew existed and that I imagine I will be using again in the future.
Film Analysis Essay
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee Historical Analysis
It takes a certain kind of skill and want to be able to make a movie about something that actually happened as accurate as possible while still being an enjoyable feature. Arguments have been made that because of this, screenwriters and directors have been sacrificing historical accuracy for something that would simply look better on screen. How can film teach us about history without being perfectly accurate? This question and more like it have been showing up more and more as we see movies being created about historical events. In the case of this movie, where the historical event is of war and violence, it is hard to create a film that shows what really happened without showing too much of the writer’s/director’s bias in the film. The reason this is hard to control is because there is always a lot of controversy about events that involve the death of people. Film has been a critical part of American society for quite some time now so it is safe to say that historical movies, if done right, can be a good source for people to learn about events without having the information skewed too much.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is a good example of a film that has been done with some bias but not so much that it renders the information useless. The film is likely to be understood as one that bashes on US behavior at the time of this event. This however, does not make the film inaccurate in any sense because this was (for the most part) the attitude of the United States Government at the time. This film in particular teaches its viewers about the perils of Native life during their assimilation into a more modernized society and how each side saw the transformation from “savage” to “civilized land owner.” Being able to have a visual representation of what happened at and before Wounded Knee is undoubtably useful to those of us who learn best by a visual presentation of the events and thus better able to really absorb the emotion of the time. This is one way films can teach us about history without being too biased; the director has to show the audience of the struggles and perils of that time and how that impacted everyone - including whites and Natives. In Bury My Heart at Wounded knee, this was achieved by constantly switching back and forth between the view of the Natives and the view of the people in the government and in white society. They need to do this in such a way though, that historical value and accuracy is not replaced by the typical drama that is often added to movies to add to the effect or to showcase what the writers/directors believe about the event.
In the film, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, some historical inaccuracies can be easily identified by anyone who has spent time reading and analyzing primary sources about Wounded Knee. One such historical error is the entire character of General Nelson A. Miles. In the movie, he is portrayed as a loyal soldier to the US government and follows orders without question and with force. This is not actually how Miles was in real life. If you were to read primary sources from him, you would see that he was actually much more hesitant and un-willing to do what they did to the Natives. He would acknowledge that they had been wronging the Natives and he would act as though he were ashamed of his nation. It would be safe to say that the reasoning behind the filmmakers decision to change the character of General Miles was based off of a bias towards the Natives. Chances are it was also to make a more engaging movie.
Despite the known flaws of historical film, it can be a very effect way for someone to quickly learn the general knowledge behind an event. Film teaches us about many different things ranging from how to be an action hero in space to what happened to our country years and years ago. Historical films teach us of our past all while providing the correct information and a flare of bias that makes it all human. Without a bias, it’s just a collection of pictures with words playing at 60 frames a second.
It takes a certain kind of skill and want to be able to make a movie about something that actually happened as accurate as possible while still being an enjoyable feature. Arguments have been made that because of this, screenwriters and directors have been sacrificing historical accuracy for something that would simply look better on screen. How can film teach us about history without being perfectly accurate? This question and more like it have been showing up more and more as we see movies being created about historical events. In the case of this movie, where the historical event is of war and violence, it is hard to create a film that shows what really happened without showing too much of the writer’s/director’s bias in the film. The reason this is hard to control is because there is always a lot of controversy about events that involve the death of people. Film has been a critical part of American society for quite some time now so it is safe to say that historical movies, if done right, can be a good source for people to learn about events without having the information skewed too much.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is a good example of a film that has been done with some bias but not so much that it renders the information useless. The film is likely to be understood as one that bashes on US behavior at the time of this event. This however, does not make the film inaccurate in any sense because this was (for the most part) the attitude of the United States Government at the time. This film in particular teaches its viewers about the perils of Native life during their assimilation into a more modernized society and how each side saw the transformation from “savage” to “civilized land owner.” Being able to have a visual representation of what happened at and before Wounded Knee is undoubtably useful to those of us who learn best by a visual presentation of the events and thus better able to really absorb the emotion of the time. This is one way films can teach us about history without being too biased; the director has to show the audience of the struggles and perils of that time and how that impacted everyone - including whites and Natives. In Bury My Heart at Wounded knee, this was achieved by constantly switching back and forth between the view of the Natives and the view of the people in the government and in white society. They need to do this in such a way though, that historical value and accuracy is not replaced by the typical drama that is often added to movies to add to the effect or to showcase what the writers/directors believe about the event.
In the film, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, some historical inaccuracies can be easily identified by anyone who has spent time reading and analyzing primary sources about Wounded Knee. One such historical error is the entire character of General Nelson A. Miles. In the movie, he is portrayed as a loyal soldier to the US government and follows orders without question and with force. This is not actually how Miles was in real life. If you were to read primary sources from him, you would see that he was actually much more hesitant and un-willing to do what they did to the Natives. He would acknowledge that they had been wronging the Natives and he would act as though he were ashamed of his nation. It would be safe to say that the reasoning behind the filmmakers decision to change the character of General Miles was based off of a bias towards the Natives. Chances are it was also to make a more engaging movie.
Despite the known flaws of historical film, it can be a very effect way for someone to quickly learn the general knowledge behind an event. Film teaches us about many different things ranging from how to be an action hero in space to what happened to our country years and years ago. Historical films teach us of our past all while providing the correct information and a flare of bias that makes it all human. Without a bias, it’s just a collection of pictures with words playing at 60 frames a second.