“It has preached against colonializing Indians, and in favor of individualizing them.” (Pratt, paragraph 21) These are the ironic words of Captain Richard H. Pratt, discussing the education of the Native American society back in 1887. I say ironic because of his emphasis on the individualization of the Native Americans in which he describes the Carlisle Indian School will provide. This is because throughout his introduction to the Carlisle School within his speech titled “Kill the Indian, Save the Man,” he demonstrates nothing but colonial force on the Native American societies and a complete disregard for their individuality, even encouraging an abolishment of it. Pratt makes this idea the theme of his speech throughout his offensive general language and demonstration of how American society has been successful in forcing other groups of people to conform to their own way of life. With all of this being said, Richard H. Pratt was a trusted and successful general, and one that has even spoken out about the immorality behind racial segregation. So, when he or anyone like him with an earned, authoritative role goes in front of the public and makes a seemingly well-crafted speech – there would typically be no immediate initiative to analyze its content as opposed to just follow what he says. However, after an analysis of Pratt’s speech (especially in comparison to writings that directly challenge his main points,) I’ve come to the conclusion that although a government official is widely trusted, doesn’t mean that all their words can be as well.
A common pattern I’ve noticed throughout Pratt’s speech is his use of general and, more significantly – impersonal language. The main idea Pratt is trying to convey is a rejection of Indian genocide and a replacement of it with the education of the Indian youth. He explains how instead of just annihilating the population, an attempt to “save” the industrialized (white, American) men they have the potential to be is much more effective. In delivering this message, Pratt fills his speech with historical examples of other groups of people becoming “civilized” through American influence as well as many other wide-scale historical events that took place.
He begins this pattern through introducing the conflict with the Indians in terms of past presidents’ policies towards them. He explains how “Washington believed that commerce freely entered into between us and the Indians would bring about their civilization, and Washington was right,” (Pratt, paragraph 2) and how he “was followed by Jefferson, who inaugurated the reservation plan.” (Pratt, paragraph 2) In doing this, he’s introducing the Indian population as though they were a debate to be discussed. This is because he only discusses them through the view of government officials that came before him as if he’s gathering evidence of some sort.
He then goes further into his argument through utilizing widespread events in general as examples – such as battles and massacres between them and the Native Americans. He explains how “it is a sad day for the Indians when they fall under the assaults of our troops, as in the Piegan massacre, the massacre of Old Black Kettle and his Cheyennes at what is termed ‘the battle of the Washita,’ and hundreds of other like places in the history of our dealings with them.” (Pratt, paragraph 4) What Pratt is trying to communicate through this acknowledgement of Indian massacres is the inhumane, brutal reality of them. He’s doing this in attempt to persuade his audience to move away from genocides and switch over to education. However, this spewing of multiple, wide-scale events isn’t communicating any of the brutality and inhumanity behind them. There are no personal accounts of Native Americans who are suffering greatly from the casualties, no discussion of any of those who lost their lives, and no acknowledgement of the valued land of theirs that was destroyed. My point in this being that the Native Americans and the fate of them are being discussed as though they are not humans rather, a thing that needs to be taken care of.
After many other wide-scale references to our Constitution and description of Native American culture solely based the laws in place over them, he goes on to point out how the African community became civilized through the African Slave Trade. As uncorrelated as this seems at first, Pratt elaborates in concluding that the African population benefitted greatly through American association within slavery, and how this association could be the solution for the Indian population. He discusses the atrocious historical period of slavery through an analytical lens – how the black men who escaped it are now walking semi-free and civilized because of this “association” with American citizens they received. He explains how if they were “left in Africa, surrounded by their fellow-savages, our seven millions of industrious black fellow-citizens would still be savages.” (Pratt, paragraph 7) Nowhere in Pratt’s discussion of slavery are there direct acknowledgements of white Americans’ gruesomely inhumane treatment of them including auctioning them off, whippings, shackling, hanging, beating, rape amongst many other brutal acts. This behavior within slavery are not just details that can be glossed over when analyzing the time period and its effects as a whole. In discussing the African Americans, there’s no talk of the trauma those who survived it faced, the lives lost, the families who were ripped apart as well as many other drastic, personal effects. Pratt sees the connection between the African Americans and Native Americans to be that both populations can prosper from American association and turning over to American culture. The only connection I see Pratt making between both populations is the offensively impersonal way he feels is appropriate to discuss them and the American “dealing with” them.
In conclusion, what I take away from Pratt’s speech is just more words and numbers spewed out by another government official. I relate the way that Pratt discusses the civilization of Native Americans as though it were a business matter and statistical debate. There’s no genuine humanity or lives being discussed – it’s all impersonal information coming from someone who has deemed themselves as superior.
This is a problem within his speech – and, argument in general, because at the end of the day, it’s personal narrative that leads to true historical understanding. It’s not the number of people who died during massacres but who are the ones that lost their lives and what they left behind. It’s the stories within Native Americans’ everyday life that allows us to understand how they live, not the laws in place over them. This is demonstrated through Zitkala-Sa’s work in American Indian Stories, which is a beautifully crafted subversion of Pratt’s narrative and, oppression in general. Through this compilation of short stories filled with her personal narrative from her time at the oppressive Carlisle School, she demonstrates all of the diverse Native American culture that Pratt just defines as “savagery.” She does this throughout each story in different ways however, most significantly in my opinion, within the short story Impressions of an Indian Childhood.
Throughout her piece, Zitkala-Sa begins with describing the land around her where she grew up. She includes so much detail – it was as though the land around her wigwam was a character. Native American culture encouraged its population to treat all of their natural surroundings as though they were people because everything in the world has a role, which is already in direct opposition to Pratt’s attitude, even regarding literal humanity. She describes how “a footpath wound its way gently down the sloping land till it reached the broad river bottom; creeping through the long swamp grasses.” (Zitkala-Sa, paragraph 1) Zitkala-Sa takes something as simple as the path her and her mother took to get water from the river and paints such a detailed picture of it – highlighting all of the unique, important roles each natural factor plays (that are often overlooked in American, industrialized culture.) Though Pratt describes the lack of industrialization within the Native American’s purchased land as an example of un-civilization, Zitkala-Sa demonstrates this role that nature plays in their culture and why they wouldn’t want to corrupt it with “mak[ing] use of their large and rich estate,” (Pratt, paragraph 14) as Pratt puts it.
Then, Zitkala-Sa goes on to describe what her life was like living with her sad mother, as they depended solely on one another after the massacre of most of their family. She describes how her mother “was only of medium height,” and how “often she was sad and silent.” (Zitkala-Sa, paragraph 2) Although these seem like small, irrelevant details regarding her mother’s appearance – what she’s doing with these details are painting a picture of what her mother looked like so the audience can visualize her. She then explains how as a child, she often “begged to know what made the tears fall,” out of “her [mother’s] black eyes,” in which “shadows fell under.” (Zitkala-Sa, paragraph 2) In including all of this other physical and emotional detail about her mother’s sadness, the audience can not only visualize her mother but, also humanize her. This allows the audience to empathize more with the gruesome events that led her mother to tears and feel the personal connection to these terrible acts. From Zitkala-Sa’s personal narrative, we understand that those massacres in which Pratt lightly mentions have results that are not just undetailed casualties. These recognizable historical events have real effects on real humans involved, leaving Zitkala-Sa and her mother for example, with a “hill where [her] uncle and [her] only sister lay buried,” (Zitkala-Sa, paragraph 11) as well as her father who “has been buried in a hill nearer the rising sun.” (Zitkala-Sa, paragraph 12)
In conclusion, though words out of the mouths of government officials can have somewhat of a blissful censorship and sound nice and controlled – it’s what they typically ignore or leave out that holds most significance. Zitkala-Sa directly challenges Pratt’s claim of advocacy for Native American individuality in her work by demonstrating what individuality and identity actually encapsulate – a story of human suffering, identities stolen, and a valued culture that was stripped, not a list of “instructions to those controlling Indian matters.” (Pratt, paragraph 2)
Works Cited
Zitkala-Sa. “American Indian Stories.” American Indian Stories., digital.library.upenn.edu/women/zitkala-sa/stories/stories.html.
“‘Kill the Indian, and Save the Man’: Capt. Richard H. Pratt on the Education of Native Americans.” HISTORY MATTERS – The U.S. Survey Course on the Web, historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4929.
Jenna's Blog 