<doc.id=0121.a5>
<title> The only good Indian is a dead Indian </title>
In this essay I will give an account of attitudes to American Indians in America in the late nineteenth century. The source for my account is excerpts from three primary texts (that is, texts from the late 19th century). As it was, there were different attitudes among the settlers and their ancestors to Indians, but they all seem to have certain common denominators. Below, I will give a brief account of these main ideas and concepts that, in one way or another, permeate most of the attitudes towards American Indians revealed implicitly and expressed in the three texts. Further below I will deal with the texts one by one and make references to these concepts. 

Most of the ideas of the Americans (European settlers an their ancestors, that is) were, when it comes to American Indians, mainly characterised by the notion that the white man is of a superior race (this is referred to as white supremacy). This can be traced back to the early days of settlement when the European settlers (the Puritans) believed they were sent out on a mission from God, and that they would find a New Canaan, a land reserved for them - "the chosen and enlightened ones" - to cultivate and rule. Indians where thus not regarded as rightful owners of the land. Furthermore, the Puritans regarded themselves to be "the light of the world", the ones to set an example to the rest of humanity how life should be lived. The biblical term A City upon a Hill appealed to the Puritans when it came to their, as they saw it, superior situation. These notions were, as will be confirmed below, expressed, among other things, in what is called the manifest destiny, which is the Americans' belief in themselves being given the mission from God to expand their land. I will now move on to the first of the three texts, viz. the excerpt from Walker's book.

In the text we learn that the white man fought wars against the Indians during the 1860's, 70's and 80's in order to push the frontier further west, to control the land and keep it more or less free from Indians. The fact that these wars were fought shows that the Governments' attitude (which, in a democracy, is most often that of the majority of the people) to the Indians was deluded by the notion of white supremacy. Furthermore, the way Walker writes about the American Indians suggests and reveals his and his white brothers' attitudes to them. For example, the fact that the American Indians are referred to as "savages" by Walker, and by his contemporary whites narrating the two other texts as well, suggests that Indians where looked down on as being not only uncivilised but also of an inferior race. Walker writes: "The bulk of our present aboriginal population were born in savagery, and have lived in savagery. Try as they will, they cannot entirely subdue the savage instincts to roam at will, to defy restraint, and to indulge their lawless appetites for blood and plunder." (p. 67). Additionally, Walker's word use in the quotation above ("our present aboriginal population") suggests that the whites believed the indigenous Indians to be simply a part of their property. This belief can be seen as an attitude that has its roots in the notions of the early settlers - the one of their land being A City upon a Hill. Thus believing they were setting a good example to the Indians how life should be lived the whites put them in reservation camps and tried to control them. This is further shown from the following quotation: 
" . . . the capture of Sitting Bull . . . became a strategic measure of overshadowing importance in all plans devised by the military authorities for subjugating, or by the officials of the Interior Department for benefiting and civilizing the Indians." (p.68). This also suggests that the whites' attitude to the Indians was much that of a father's to his child - the father telling the child what to do and expecting him/her to do so because he thinks it is the only right thing to do (confer: the light of the world above). Also, on page 70 Walker refers to Indians as ""wayward children"" (alluding to the Indians), for whom the only way to, as Walker puts it "re-enact the role of good Indians" is by acting according to the white man's will. Furthermore, the whites of the late 19th century seem to have believed in the danifest destiny, even if, perhaps, in a slightly secularized way: " . . . the forlorn hope of savage obduracy, seeking to escape the fate that had been decreed to the red man in the remnants of his own wide dominion, the alternative of civilization or extermination." (Walker 69). This means that the whites believed the red man to be destined to obey the white man's rules. Though regarding the Indians as being mere savages, Walker admits that he admires Sitting Bull as being "the most remarkable leader of modern times" and thus reveals a different attitude to (at least one of) the Indians. It is also expressed in Walker's story that there were friendships between Indians and whites, even between Sitting Bull and two commanders of the U.S. Army. This shows that the attitudes towards Indians were not only those expressed and revealed in Walker's book as we will now see in the two other texts.

In Graham's text it is further expressed that the white man did attack "unwilling" Indians in order to make them live on reservations - to control them. This suggests an attitude of White supremacy and paternalism. It is also revealed that the reds were not as well treated in the camps as they were promised by law to be, which might suggest a disrespectful attitude to them. In the interview with Sitting Bull by Graham, enclosed in his text, the questions he asks the Indian chieftain reveals an attitude of White supremacy, the notions of manifest destiny and that of the whites being seen as the guiding light of the world. For instance: "Do not some of you feel as if you were destined to lose your old hunting grounds?" (p. 67). And below: " . . . are any of your people disposed to take up agriculture? . . ." Another attitude explicitly expressed by Sitting Bull as typical one for "the Americans", is that of seeing the Indians as savages and mere killers of buffaloes. 

The third text, E. Custer, reveals that Indians - in the cases she mentions in the text - were treated as whites when it came to punishment for crimes. The text further shows that even General Custer's (commander of the US Army and husband of the author) attitude to the Indians could be one of respect and even admiration. E. Custer herself tells that she took great interest in some reds' life and curiously watched their behaviour, and that her husband had a business relationship with an Indian that was built on mutual respect.

Finally, to sum up the attitudes to Indians in the late 19th century as they are revealed and expressed in the three texts, one can say that the main ones were those of white supremacy and paternalism, the notion that the white man was the light of the world, that they owned the land and that the Indians on it should be put in reservation camps. When it comes to relationships between whites and reds, though, there seem to have been good ones as well, but generally speaking, the main idea was that the only good Indian was one that you did not have to live with or close to, perhaps even better if he was not at all.
</doc>