<doc.id=2039.a5>
<title> American Indians - hostile but great savages </title>
The first settlers who arrived in Virginia in 1607 soon came into contact with the aboriginal population of the new continent. At first, the natives were perceived as friendly and generous hosts, but this attitude would soon change radically. The clashes between Indians and settlers would soon develop a very hostile relationship between these two groups of people. In this paper, I would like to deal with the white population's attitudes to American Indians in the late nineteenth century, in order to see how the natives were viewed by the settlers and their descendants. In order to do this, I will look at excerpts from four texts dealing with the opinions of the contemporary white population on Indians, namely Boots and Saddles, or Life in Dakota with General Custer (1885), by Elizabeth B. Custer; The Custer Myth: A Source Book of Custeriana (1953), edited by W. A. Graham; Ideas and Identities: British and American Culture 1500-1945 (1992), edited by Rolf Lundén & Michael Srigley; and Campaigns of General Custer in the North-West and the Final Surrender of Sitting Bull (1881), by Judson E. Walker. Departing from these texts, I will respectively state the negative and positive attitudes that the white settlers had to Indians. All references to these texts will be indicated by surname and page number only.

As pointed out in the introduction, the initial impression that the settlers had of the Indians was that they were noble and friendly. The pilgrims, who had come to the new country to create God's Kingdom on earth, assumed that the Indians understood and accepted the divine mission given to the settlers, as they had not cultivated this highly fertile land (Lundén & Srigley: 85). Therefore, when the Indians reacted to the pilgrims' taking too much liberties, by defending themselves and their land, they were seen as representatives of Satan, who were sent out to test the faith and strength of the settlers (Lundén & Srigley: 86). The Indians were considered savages who could not possibly understand the greatness of the holy mission of the settlers, and their defence was seen as evidence of their incapability of subduing "their lawless appetites for blood and plunder" (Walker: 67). The settlers felt that the Indians treated them with scorn and defiance in their communications (Walker: 69), and that they were naturally evasive and disdainful (Graham: 67). In Walker (68), the Indians are depicted as "professedly peaceful", which seems to indicate that the settlers thought that the Indians were not to be trusted, as they pretended to be good, when they were, in fact, only bloodthirsty savages. Generally, the Indians were looked upon as filthy and lazy, which is conveyed by Custer (237), who describes the irresponsible behaviour of the male Indians coming home after having killed a game. They seemingly let their squaws bring back and take care of the dead animal, while they laid themselves down to sleep. Custer (237) finishes this passage by stating that she "never knew but one Indian who worked". The Indian traditions and customs were regarded as inferior to those of the settlers, which is expressed explicitly in Graham (72), where the Indian way of measuring time by indicating how the shadow progresses on the arm is criticized for its lack of preciseness. The Indian language was also thought of as primitive and "not deficient in abusive terms and epithets" (Custer: 227). The fact that the Indians are constantly referred to as "hostiles" (Custer: 228; Graham: 106; Walker: 66) and "savages" (Custer: 239; Graham: 66; Walker: 69) also emphasizes this characteristic feeling of superiority of the white population, which conveys a generally negative attitude to Indians.

However, not everything about the Indians is thought of as negative, even if this seems to be the prevalent opinion of the white man. The negative opinions are usually expressed explicitly, but there are often remarks in the examined texts which implicitly communicate a certain admiration of the Indians. Here and there, the authors speak of "savage greatness" (Walker: 67) and "barbaric grandeur" (Graham: 68), which seems to convey a secret esteem for their sworn enemies. Custer (213), when telling of the trial of Rain-in-the-face, who had killed a white man, says that when she saw how dignified and brave this Indian was, she almost wished he be pardoned. Usually, the remarks of admiration are made when the authors speak of individuals, whereas the negative comments on Indians are normally associated with general opinions of the whole group of Indians. For instance, Walker (74) speaks of Sitting Bull as "the most remarkable leader of modern times", and Running Antelope is described as "intensely dignified and fine-looking" by Custer (225). The latter is particularly positive when mentioning Bloody Knife, who is regarded as loyal and clever (Custer: 236). There are also positive opinions expressed explicitly, for example when Custer (211) refers to the Indians as being "gorgeous in full dress", and in Graham (105), where they are depicted as intelligent and skilful, as they leave their horses safe from fire when fighting, contrary to the white men. This episode is told by Dr. Marquis, a white man who became friends with the Northern Cheyennes, and who gives a more nuanced picture of the Indians. He describes them as impressive warriors outsmarting the white men, who prefer committing suicide to being captured by the Indians when realizing they are going to be defeated (Graham: 105). However, Marquis is not entirely positive when relating his story, as he tells of some Indians mutilating the dead soldiers (Graham: 106), but this only seems to reinforce his credibility.

In conclusion, the opinions on Indians of white men in the nineteenth century seem to have been chiefly negative. They were regarded as the Devil's henchmen, and they were generally thought of as lazy, filthy and bloodthirsty. However, even those who were filled with the uttermost hatred towards Indians could see that they were dignified and able warriors. It seems as if the settlers had a negative attitude to Indians as a group of people, but they began to change their minds once they came into closer contact with them. Thus, the main reason for the generally negative attitude to Indians seems to have been a lack of communication between the two groups of people.
</doc>