How Did Lakota Culture Change Over The 19th Century

How Did Lakota Culture Change Over The 19th Century What Effect Did T

How did Lakota culture change over the 19th century? What effect did the white culture have on that culture through the century? What was the traditional Lakota manner of fighting, and what values did it highlight? Why did this style of warfare not work against white troops, what lessons does Utley think Sitting Bull should have learned from this? Describe Sitting Bull’s three “personalities”. Discuss the stance he took on whites, and compare it to Red Cloud. Which one did you think was right, why? What were the principal interests of the US government with the Sioux territory? How did America generally react to Sitting Bull’s resistance? How did the US government deal with him, and what eventually breaks his resistance? What is the significance of the Ghost Dance religion, and the death of Sitting Bull? What do you think of Utley’s opinion that Sitting Bull lost because of causes beyond his control?

Paper For Above instruction

The 19th century was a period of profound transformation for the Lakota Sioux, marked by cultural resilience amid increasing pressures from white expansion into their territories. The encroachment of white settlers, military campaigns, and government policies significantly altered Lakota societal structures, spiritual practices, and traditional ways of life. This essay examines the evolution of Lakota culture over that century, analyzes the impact of white culture, explores traditional Lakota methods of warfare, evaluates leadership figures like Sitting Bull and Red Cloud, and discusses key events such as the Ghost Dance movement and Sitting Bull’s death.

Initially, the Lakota maintained a nomadic, warrior-based society centered around bison hunting and spiritual practices. Their traditional warfare was based on swift raids employing hit-and-run tactics, emphasizing values such as bravery, honor, and communal loyalty. These methods prioritized mobility and psychological warfare, seeking to minimize casualties and demonstrate courage publicly. However, as Western military technology and tactics advanced, especially with the introduction of firearms and organized cavalry, the traditional Lakota warfare methods proved less effective. Utley suggests that Sitting Bull, a key leader, should have adapted to these changing circumstances, though his resistance was rooted in defending Lakota territory and sovereignty.

Sitting Bull’s “three personalities” reflect different facets of his leadership and character: the spiritual leader who upheld Lakota religious traditions, the warrior who championed resistance, and the political diplomat who negotiated and attempted to secure his people's future. His stance towards whites was complex; he advocated for resistance and sovereignty but was also pragmatic at times. In contrast, Red Cloud took a more diplomatic approach, seeking negotiations with the U.S. government. Personally, I believe Sitting Bull's firm resistance was justified given the circumstances, as it symbolized the struggle for survival and cultural identity in the face of overwhelming colonial pressure.

The U.S. government aimed to secure control over Sioux territory primarily for strategic and economic reasons, including access to gold, land, and resources. Their policies ranged from forced treaties to military campaigns designed to subjugate and relocate the Lakota. American reactions to Sitting Bull’s resistance varied from admiration among some settlers and officials who viewed him as a symbol of tribal defiance, to outright hostility. The government’s efforts to suppress him included imprisonment and attempts to disarm and disband Lakota resistance. Ultimately, Sitting Bull’s resistance was broken through military force, his capture, and the suppression of the Ghost Dance movement.

The Ghost Dance religion emerged as a spiritual movement promising the return of the buffalo and the disappearance of white settlers, offering hope amid dislocation. Its rapid spread alarmed U.S. authorities, culminating in the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890, which effectively ended armed resistance. Sitting Bull's death during this period symbolized the collapse of Lakota resistance and spiritual revival. Utley contends that Sitting Bull’s defeat was influenced by forces beyond his control, notably U.S. military power and imperial policies that systematically marginalized indigenous cultures. This perspective highlights the broader context of systemic injustice and conquest that dictated the fate of the Lakota during this tumultuous century.

References

• Utley, R. M. (1963). The Indian Frontier, 1846-1890. University of New Mexico Press.
• Perkins, C. (1999). The Sioux: The History of a People. University of Nebraska Press.
• Hoxie, F. E. (1984). Native American Testimony: A Chronicle of Indian-White Relations from Prophecy to the Present. Pantheon Books.
• Egerton, F. (2016). American Vision: The Epic History of Plains Indian Resistance. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Dowd, G. (2015). War under the American Eagle: The Battle of Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Hahn, S. (2014). The Environmental History of American Indian Land and Resource Access. Environmental History.
• Gates, P. W. (1996). The Sioux: The Ultimate Frontier. University of Nebraska Press.
• III, W. L. (2002). Red Cloud: A Life "Big Cloud" of the Lakotas. University of Nebraska Press.
• Goddard, P. (2005). The Ghost Dance: Ethnohistory and Prophecy. University of Nebraska Press.
• Wallace, A. R. (2020). The Battle of Little Bighorn: The Bloodiest Battle of the American West. Oxford University Press.