<doc.id=0227.a5>
<title> "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" </title>
In this essay I am going to give an account of the attitudes to American Indians in the late nineteenth century as they are expressed explicitly, or revealed implicitly, in the texts written by Judson E. Walker, W. A. Graham and Elizabeth Custer. I will try to identify the different attitudes and present them in a clear way by grouping them into two main categories: positive and negative, with a couple of sub-categories. There may be an imbalance between the two main groups, depending on what significance you attach to each attitude. 
I will also try to give a brief account of the key ideas behind some of the attitudes in order to explain why they are expressed.

The negative attitudes expressed or revealed in the texts can be seen as the result of key ideas of the time the authors firmly believed in, subjectivity, prejudice or simply ignorance. The expression of these attitudes can also be seen as an attempt of justifying the bad treatment of the Indians. One of the key ideas behind the negative attitudes is the idea of white supremacy, the superiority of the white race in comparison to other races (Ideas and Identities, page 155).

This idea is reflected in several attitudes in different parts of the texts. One of these attitudes is the comparison of Indians to animals or little children, driven mainly by violent instincts, unable to handle freedom in a responsible way and being in need of guidance by white Americans. This attitude is expressed quite clearly by Judson E. Walker throughout almost all of his text: "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." (page 67). 

Another attitude similar to the one above is the idea that Indians have an evil duplicity almost being a Jekyll and Hyde. In the words of J. E. Walker: ". . . having returned to the agencies to which they belonged, and were there re-enacting the role of good Indians. .." (page 70) or in the texts of E. Custer, where she begins the story with praising the Indians' impressive manners and costumes and ends the story by revealing their "true" nature: ". . . all formally presented to the distinguished stranger . . . I found him to be the ferocious-looking savage who had killed his enemy from another tribe and eaten his heart warm." (page 239).

The idea of white supremacy is also expressed more directly by J. E. Walker: ". . . recognizing in the rapid development of the North-west country, the signs of the inevitable fate that thrusts upon the red man the alternative of civilization or extermination." (page 73).

Another key idea expressed in this quotation is the Manifest Destiny, the idea that it was God's will that the United States extended its territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean (Ideas and Identities, page 153). It reoccurs in the interview with Sitting Bull: "Do not some of you feel as if you were destined to loose your old hunting grounds?" (Graham, page 67).

Other negative attitudes based on subjectivity are the ones that express a will to simply tell lies about the Indians or historical facts about them. J. E. Walker gives the impression that the ultimate goal of Sitting Bull and his tribe was "murder and rapine" (page 66) and that Sitting Bull became leader of the Sioux thanks to his "murderous raids and savage cruelties" (page 67). He says that Sitting Bull's Indians were "killing the cattle" (page 72) when they were most likely hunting it and that the battle at Little Big Horn was a massacre (page 70). E. Custer also claims that It was Rain-in-the-face who killed Colonel Tom (page 215) - how could she possibly know this when no white soldiers survived the battle? 

The final group of negative attitudes are the ones based on prejudice and ignorance. One of these attitudes reveals an incapacity to understand and accept that there are other ways of living, other cultural and social traditions. In the interview with Sitting Bull W. A. Graham reveals his incapacity to understand that Sitting Bull and his tribe want to hunt buffalo instead of farming (page 67). E. Custer is surprised over Indian traditions when she explains the Indian wife's duties as being those of a slave (pp 236-237) and she tends to generalize, claiming that the behaviour of the Indians she has seen is universal: "The squaws do all the labor . . . I never knew but one Indian who worked." (page 237). An attitude based on ignorance is revealed when J. E. Walker calls Sitting Bull's demand for truth a "mark of savage discourtesy" (page 71). He doesn't understand that Indians were used to being lied to by white Americans.

The positive attitudes revealed in the texts are more or less the opposite of the negative ones. Several of these attitudes reveal self-criticism, almost a sense of guilt about the way Indians were treated. W. A. Graham admits to the fact that white Americans have been lying to the Indians, when he is explaining Two Moon's role in the battle at Little Big Horn: "In view of the white man's record of mendacity when dealing with Indians. . ." (page 106). He is also very critical of the way the white Americans have treated the Indians which is evident in the final paragraphs of page 107. E. Custer also seems to understand that the famine caused many Indians to join Sitting Bull (page 228). 

In many of the texts it is also evident that the author accepts and speaks about Indian social and cultural traditions or differences in a positive and objective manner. With a few exceptions, almost all of W. A. Graham's texts is written very objectively, not using negative adjectives, not censoring Sitting Bull's words in the interview and not ridiculing Indian traditions. He deliberately leaves out the part of Wooden Leg's story when he tells about the "mutilation of the dead" (page 106) and reports of the battle at Little Big Horn in a very objective way. E. Custer also seems to appreciate Indian culture when she compares Indian costumes with those worn on "A New York Charity Ball" (page 210) or says that "The manner in which Running Antelope folded his robe around him . . . was worthy of a Roman emperor." (page 227). It is obvious also that she tries to be objective in most of her text, but that she sometimes is somewhat prejudiced in an unconscious way.

Finally, I would like to point out that even though the negative attitudes seem to be more numerous, the positive attitudes are certainly more important and valuable, and therefore of more significance. Sometimes you get the impression that people's attitudes to American Indians in the nineteenth century were all negative, but some of these authors certainly prove the opposite.
</doc>