In the early nineteenth century, Native Americans were represented so as to signify establishment of a “good society” and the superiority of white Americans. Such racial structure did not change in the Columbian Exposition (1893). In most exhibits, they were displayed in an ethnological frame and represented as “savage” to highlight white-American “progress”. However, each Native-American exhibit was inconsistent with each other, turning the exposition of American “progress” into “frolic” and a “whirligig of pleasure”. The exposition became a huge stage of entertainment where Native Americans were set free from political oppression in the real life and proudly represented themselves as performers. For example, as performing in front of the fairgoers, they demonstrated resistance against their image such as being an “ill-fated” and “extinguishing” people. They also defined their role in American history on their own, and even off the stage, they interacted with their white employers in relatively equal standing. This chapter consists of two parts. The first part explores the comparison approach applied to the exposition. On the fairground, Native Americans were put in an ethnocentric diagram between civilized and savage and were mainly forced to play the savage role, which served to highlight “civilization” or “progress” of the white-American society. That shows the unchanged nature of white Americans’ representation of Native Americans. The second part depicts the exhibits of Native Americans and the meaning that the performance had to them. For Native Americans, shows were a sort of medium through which they freely defined and represented themselves and their culture. In addition, it provided a space in which they could interact equally with white Americans.
Columbian Exposition
In 1892, the United States saw its four-hundredth anniversary of Columbus’s landing on the continent. In commemoration of the anniversary, the Columbian Exposition was planned to be the international event to demonstrate quadricentennial “progress” of the nation[1]. The government was considering the most effective way to emphasize the progressive theme. Generally speaking, to highlight one thing, comparison with another will help, and if they were distinctive from each other, that will be more comprehensible. Consequently, they presented their “progress” by showcasing the past, present and future of America,[2]. Native Americans were considered to be the nice object of comparison with white Americans’ “progress” or “future” because they were viewed as “savage” in innocent state and associated with the “past” or “immaturity”. As a result, “civilization” and “savagery” were simultaneously presented and contrasted in the exposition[3]. While some Native Americans were represented as a signifier of “civilization” such as presence of students in “Indian School Exhibit,” all the other performers were treated as “traditional” or “savage”[4].
< The White City and the Midway>
On the fairground spreading as large as six hundred acres, fourteen main buildings and two hundred supplementary buildings stood[5]. The comparison between “civilized” and “savage” was seen in various places. For example, looking at the fair in macroscopic way, the fairground was composed of two sites – the White City as “civilized” utopia and the Midway Plaisance (or just “Midway”, it was called) as “primitive” and exotic show-booth – which contested each other[6]. Symbolized as “a little ideal world”, White City presented white-American civilization with its ersatz marble buildings[7]. White neoclassic architecture showed American advancement in technology and intellect[8]. There were a variety of exhibits such as the Agricultural Building, Mining Building, and Transportation Building[9]. Anthropologists and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs also showcased Native Americans to present the “progress” of the United States in the “ideal” site. The Midway Plaisance, which laid on the main street between the railroad station and the White City, held restaurants, souvenir shops and exhibitions of other countries[10]. There were mainly three Native American exhibits on the Midway, Sitting Bull Cabin Exhibit, commercial Indian Villages and Buffalo Bill’s Wild West. In such places, Native Americans were displayed with exotic appeal to the fairgoers. Although Buffalo Bill’s Wild West, placed on the opposite side of the White City, was not an official exhibit of the exposition, few audiences knew the fact[11]. The Midway seemed to portray the “scale” of human evolution[12]. Along with the Midway, fairgoers “ascended” the scale from the primitive state of humans, seen in the Wild West to the pinnacle of “civilization” symbolized by the “dynamos and pillared facades” of the White City[13]. For example, a reporter noted that it “afforded the scientific mind to descend the spiral of evolution tracing humanity in its highest phases down almost to its animalistic origins.”[14]. The contrast between the White City and the Midway demonstrated the white-American “civilization” and non-white degradation, which was based on the racial hierarchy. The comparison approach was also seen in each site of the Native American exhibit.
There was a comparison even among the different exhibits of Native Americans. The directors of Native-American exhibits had different ideas about what was American progress and what kind of role Native Americans had played for the progress. Each opinion was simultaneously presented, and consequently, contested and inverted each other. However, all of them were meant to highlight the progress of white-American society. On the White City, several sites exhibited Native Americans. For example, there were The Anthropological Building, run by Frederic Putnam, an anthropologist and the director of Peabody museum then, the Outdoor Ethnographical Exhibit directed by Putnam and his chief assistant Franz Boas and The Indian School Building run by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs[15]. The anthropologists like Putnam intended to show how Native Americans lived hundred or thousand years ago[16]. Putnam, as Director of the Exposition’s Department of Anthropology, directed several exhibits, in which he displayed Native Americans themselves with some artifacts, physical anthropology labs, and traditional dwellings[17]. He had no attempt to present Native Americans as “exotic” people, as exhibits in the Midway did, he rather sought to propose American anthropology as a new science to understand human diversity and history[18]. That was what he considered “progress” of American science. On the other hand, the Bureau presented “civilized” students of Indian school[19]. Thomas Morgan, the director of the “Indian School Exhibit,” had dissenting opinion about ethnological exhibits because he believed they would hinder Native-American assimilation[20]. Despite a number of “traditional” exhibits of Native Americans, he emphasized educational “progress” and government’s effort for making “United States citizens out of American savages.”[21]. Directors of Native American exhibits had a different opinion about how unique American “progress” was and presented “Native Americans” to fit their definitions of American progress. With the two contesting representations, that is, “traditional” people in anthropological display and “civilized” people educated by the government, some critiques came up. For example, Native American physician P. Johnson, opposed the traditional way of display in the outdoor Living Exhibit; “living in their bark tents selling Indian toggery and trinkets . . . [in the] Manners, habits and civilizations of his state 400 years ago . . . in a most exaggerated manner”[22]. Also, the opinion of Emma Sickels, a former member of the Department of Ethnology appeared in The New York Times on October 8, 1893; “Every effort has been put forth,” she says, “to make the Indian exhibit mislead the American people. It has been used to work up sentiment against the Indian by showing that he is either savage or can be educated only by Government agencies.”[23]” As she wrote, the Morgan’s site seemed to present Native-American “civilization”, but what it really did was to highlight the government’s achievement in education. Even among Native-American exhibits, “civilization” and “tradition” were compared, and that only served to highlight white-American “progress”.
< Native American mannequins and ‘Typical Americans’>
There was another comparison between white American’s “civilization” and Native Americans in “primitive” state, which, again, highlighted the progress of white-American society. In the Anthropological Building, Franz Boas, an anthropologist and the chief organizer, presented the physical anthropology (the studies of physical difference among races) and demonstrated “how the white race developed” in America[24]. In this evolutional staging in which white Americans were put as the goal of the evolution, Native- American mannequins in tribal attire played an introductory role of the “life group” to America[25]. The Native-American mannequins were presented as the passed phase in the development of white-American race. Native Americans and white Americans which respectively symbolized the past and the present made contrast. That elevated white Americans to progressed and superior people.
The Native-American mannequins were compared not only with white Americans in real life, but also with white-American mannequins which were admired by the audiences as “ideal” figures. In the Anthropological building, Boas displayed the outcome of physical anthropology as a new science[26]. The study showed physical differences among Native-American tribes as well as the physical growth of children[27]. With the method, he tried to alter, rather than intensify, the public attitude that approved white-American superiority[28]. As a part of the display of the study, a set of statues of a white man and woman called ‘Typical Americans’ were put on the anthropological building. Dudley Allen Sargent, Professor of Harvard physical education expert, offered his accumulated data to sculptors[29]. The white statues became popular as “the Harvard Adam and Eve,” “the perfect physical man,” and the “Harvard Venus”[30]. Although the statues were just a result of the studies for Sargent, unexpectedly they became a symbol of “ideal” figure and were compared with Native-American mannequins in traditional flavor as well as living Native Americans performing at other exhibits. Native Americans were defined by the difference from the “ideal”[31].
Similar to the debate among the white Americans on Cherokee removal in the early nineteenth century, Native Americans in the exposition were, again, represented by white Americans to highlight their “progress”. Motivated to show (what they considered) American “progress”, directors of each exhibit considered how they defined Native Americans and represented them according to their definitions. Except for the “Indian School Exhibit,” Native Americans were defined as far different from the “ideal”. Even when some performers, like Rain in the Face, a performer from Sioux nation, who worked for the Sitting Bull Cabin in the Midway, resisted such degrading way of representation, the ethnocentric frame was never eradicated[32]. White Americans still had the power to control the ideology of how to represent Native Americans. Deprived of the right to stop degrading representations, however, they showed quiet resistance, by sometimes going-off script or turning the public discourse around. As a result, they revitalized their dormant ritual as well as resisted the history reflecting just the voices of white Americans. Also, they could stand in the relatively equal status with their white-American employers because the performers were a source of exotic appeal to the fairgoers, an important essence for the success of the exhibits.
Native Americans’ Self-Representation
While fairgoers strolled among different Native-American exhibits, they thought how those exhibits fit together or not. In the exposition, each site had different perceptions of what was “real”, and the reality presented in one site was contested and inverted by another site[33]. Therefore, the border between reality and fiction became blurred, the fair itself turned to be the huge stage of entertainment rather than a place for public education. On such a stage, Native-American performers sometimes slipped out of control by the Exposition Company and autonomously defined and represented themselves. Although they acted in “traditional” flavor as white Americans expected, they sometimes utilized such opportunity to make a claim. Kwakiutls, for example, revitalized their dormant ritual in exaggerating manner, through which they showed their cultural tenacity as well as political resistance. They also might have taken advantage of their sensational and exotic appeal to increase their profit. “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West”, one of the exhibits, could be the most influential site, though it was an unofficial exhibit, presented without permission by the Exposition Company[34]. Although it earned money by reproducing Native-American defeat by white Americans, it did not emphasize their ill-fate, but the resilience of Native Americans who by the time had become ‘Americans’[35]. Moreover, it was a distinctive place where Native Americans could proudly boast their cultural skills such as riding and ghost dancing which was systematically suppressed in the nineteenth-century policies. Furthermore, Native Americans as “Show Indians” became widely known since their participation in the Columbian Exposition[36]. With the status as “Show Indians,” the performers saw some of their needs accepted because the directors depended on exoticism in their performance as an attraction[37]. The representation as “Show Indians” not only offered profit to them, but also allowed them to overcome racial hierarchy for a while and realized equal relationship between professional performers and employers, which was ensured by contracts with white Americans.
Kwakiutl Village
<Resistance & Revitalization>
Kwakiutl Village, one of the seventeen communities in the Outdoors Living Exhibit by Department of Ethnology and Archaeology, was one of the successful cases that Native Americans presented their cultural tenacity as well as political resistance[38]. Although Kwakiutls consisted of various communities in British Columbia, they were part of the ethnologic display produced by Putnam[39]. On the fairground where the boundary between reality and entertainment was obscured, Native-American performers including Kwakiutls enjoyed some extent of autonomy. Going off-script, they performed the hamatsa initiation ritual[40]. The hamatsa was performed by possessed performers and included dancing, singing and skin pulling[41]. Here is a description by Rinehart;
Chief Twobites and Joe Strongback took to the stage and tore off their shirts as George Hunt followed behind them. Hunt, approaching Twobites and Strongback, proceeded to cut four slashes on their backs with a razor. […] Hunt then slid ropes beneath the flaps of skin, tying both ends together, and the performers began singing loudly while pulling on the ropes. Twobites and Strongback then paused and let the ropes bear all their weight until the ropes pulled away. Other Kwakiutl performers seized Twobites, and Hunt returned to the stage, offering his arm to Twobites to bite.
The hamatsa in the exposition did not show the exact picture of what Kwakiutls actually practiced then. For example, the ritual was neither typically performed during the summer (the fair was held from May 1st to October 31st), nor for non-Native Americans[42]. Also, it was performed in an exaggerating manner, making bloody illusion by using kelp and red paints[43]. Due to its visual brutality, the hamatsa became controversial and was covered by the media[44]. For example, a reporter for the New York Tribune referred to the ritual as “chiefly performed for the sake of diversion,” while the others reported only its brutality with little detail[45]. By behaving autonomously and drawing public attention on their own, they repossessed their control over their representation[46]. Also, through the sensational performance, they resisted the political suppression. When they went off-script, they circumvented the performance rule determined by the Council of Administration and the Ways and Means Committee[47]. Considering the nineteenth-century policies on Native American culture such as restriction of dancing in 1882, their message was clear; resistance to political suppression of their culture. For Kwakiutl, the hamatsa was their own way of assertion of their cultural autonomy, persistence and political resistance[48].
“Buffalo Bill’s Wild West”
The resistance to white Americans was not limited to the site of Kwakiutl Village which revitalized the hamatsa, overcoming the oppressive policy toward Native-American cultures. “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West” resisted the history proposed by white Americans.
“Buffalo Bill’s Wild West” appeared at first sight, consistent with the “savage” frame that the Exposition Company expected. However, it simultaneously challenged the frame as well as the public understanding of American history. Although the Wild West, managed by Buffalo Bill (or William F. Cody) was not accepted as an official exhibit of the fair due to its inconsistency with the progressive theme, Cody rented a huge arena near one of the gates of the fairground[49]. With over five hundred employees including two hundred Native-American performers and three hundred equestrians from different countries, Cody performed two shows each day during the term of the exposition[50]. His Wild West consisted of different “Epochs”[51]. Slotkin describes:
“Beginning with the Primeval Forest, peopled by the Indian and Wild Beasts only, the story of the gradual civilization of a vast continent is depicted.” The first “Epoch” displayed Plains Indian dancers but represented them as typical of the woodland Indians who greeted the colonists on the Atlantic shore (a tableau depicting either the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock or John Smith and Pocahontas). The historical program then cut abruptly to the settlement of the Great Plains, displaying life on a Cattle Ranch, a grand “Buffalo Hunt,” and Indian attacks on a settler’s cabin and the “Deadwood Stage.[52]”
Although the Native-American performers were portrayed as violent and “savage”, Cody intended to emphasize the significance of violence and “savage” war to American progress[53]. He considered that white civilization could be ascribed to White settler Americans’ war with Native Americans[54]. Slotkin quotes Cody’s essay;
[While it is] a trite saying that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” it is equally true that the bullet is the pioneer of civilization, for it has gone hand in hand with the axe that cleared the forest, and with the family Bible and school book. Deadly as has been its mission in one sense, it has been merciful in another; for without the rifle ball we of America would not be to-day in the possession of a free and united country, and mighty in our strength.[55]
As the contrast between Buffalo Bill’s Wild West and the White City implies, wars and violence could be associated with savagery like peace with civilization[56]. However, in Cody’s show, war was respected as a means to achieve peace and progress[57]. That contradicted the public understanding. Native Americans who were put as the opposites of civilization, turned to be the mother of progress in his show.
“Buffalo Bill’s Wild West” was not only enjoyed as pastime show, but also accepted as a medium for history education. Why was the “show” appreciated seriously as public education? According to Slotkin, it was because Cody elevated the “show” to a “space” where past and present, as well as fiction and reality could simultaneously exist[58]. The concept of “space” was reflected to the name of the show. At the turn of the century, similar entertainments were popular, yet they were known as Wild West “shows”[59]. However, Cody’s was called “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West” which described itself as a “space” where the historical scenes were reproduced for education rather than an entertainment[60]. The Wild West was described as a place of reproduction of historical scenes as Cody declared in a Salutatory notice;
It is the aim of the management of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West to do more than present an exacting and realistic entertainment for public amusement. Their object is to PICTURE TO THE EYE, by the aid of historical characters and living animals, a series of animated scenes and episodes, which had their existence in fact, of the wonderful pioneer and frontier life of the Wild West of America.[61]
Here, one can see that the past and present coexisted in the Wild West because the past was reproduced on the present stage. Also, the shows mixed fiction and reality. Slotkin argues, “the “Forest Primeval” Epoch reads colonial history in Fenimore Cooper’s terms, the Plains episodes in terms drawn from the dime novel.”[62]. In the “space” where past and present, as well as fiction and reality coexisted, the history presented on the stage was elevated into the genuine history of Native Americans and white Americans[63]. With the certification of authenticity, the “history” showed by Cody and Native-American performers was proposed as an alternative to another historical narrative presented by Turner. In other words, the American history was re-created by the Native-American performers.
Cody’s Wild West showed resistance toward the history proposed by white Americans. Furthermore, it also opposed the oppression on Native-American cultures, which had a significant meaning to the cultural identity of Native Americans. Native American cultures, including dance, were oppressed in the late nineteenth century[64]. Under such policy, the Wild West became the salvation of the cultures. Actually, the performers in the show included twenty-three ghost dancers who had been prisoned and were released for the show[65]. By the name of entertainment as well as a medium for history education, Native Americans freely practiced their culture[66]. However, it was nothing but a fearful act for the government[67]. In the arena, Native American songs and dances were encouraged[68]. During the show, they enjoyed opportunities to show off their cultural skills. For example, there were “Cowboy Fun” shows between the different scenes, in which performers boasted their riding and roping skills[69]. Also, in the scenes of attack, their war skills proudly presented, which was appreciated by audiences[70]. In fact, the opportunities for performing their cultures attracted Native Americans[71]. Ellis quotes the report of an Indian agent; “school boys speak longingly of the time when they will no longer be required to attend school, but can let their hair grow, dance the Omaha, and go off with the shows.[72]” Despite the oppressive policy, Wild West made Native American confident in themselves by respecting their history of exploitation and valuing their cultural skills[73]. Furthermore, Cody treated Native-American performers equally as contingents from other countries, which also might have contributed to the self-confidence of the Native-American performers who knew their claims often faced cold refusal in reality[74]. Their participation in “The Wild West” was meaningful for Native Americans and their cultures, as Ellis notes, “What seemed to be show for eager audiences turned out to be something much more important for the Indians who put them on.”[75]. They could become confident in themselves as skillful performers with respectable culture and history.
The Sitting Bull Cabin
The performers at Kwakiutl Village and “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West” represented themselves on the stage, free from a vertical relationship with white Americans. However, Native-American performers could stand in the relatively equal position even off the stage because they were demanded by white-American employers as a source of exotic appeal to the fairgoers. The performers in “Sitting Bull Cabin” can offer the detail of the relationship between the performers and the employers at the Columbian Exposition.
Since some white-American directors relied upon Native American performers during the fair for exotic appeal, the performers’ needs were sometimes accepted[76]. For example, Curly, a performer for the “Sitting Bull Cabin Exhibit,” behaved autonomously and his needs was accepted by the director, P. B. Wickham. Because of his presence at the Native American wars as a Crow scout for Gen. George Armstrong Custer, Curly was one of influential performers at the site[77]. Nevertheless, after arriving in Chicago, he claimed his immediate return home because he heard that his wife cheated on him in his absence[78]. Even when Wickham refused to pay travel expenses, Curley insisted on his return regardless of whether being paid or not[79]. Consequently, Wickham consented reluctantly, and paid him[80]. Unlike the unilaterality in the government’s Native American policies, in the world of show-business, the relationship between Wickham and Curly was relatively equal; Wickham needed Curly for his site to thrive, and thence accepted his demands. In the late nineteenth century, there were various shows such as Wild West shows that featured Native American warriors. Performers could exercise choice of employment. Actually, Rain in the Face, another notorious performer from the Sioux nation, working for Wickham, switched his job from the Buffalo Bill’s Wild West to “Sitting Bull Cabin Exhibit” probably because of employment conditions such as better wages and living arrangement[81]. Even before deciding to work for Wickham, Rain in the Face turned down some offers[82]. Show directors who hoped to retain influential performers needed to be tolerant to their demands. In the exposition, the racial hierarchy persistently remain, as there was no Native-American director/employer. However, as performers, some Native Americans could enjoy equal relationship with their white employers.
Through the performance at the exposition, Native American performers expressed their resistance to the oppression of their culture and history and represented themselves. Also, as important employees, they could enjoy relatively equal relationships with white Americans. After the exposition, performers at the Buffalo Bill’s Wild West were called “Show Indians” by Indian Agents and officers of Indian Bureau[83]. Some concessionaires and managers of exposition, finding the popularity of Native American performances, began hiring them[84]. They were also hired to other shows such as Barnum and Bailey’s Great Ethnological Congress[85]. Even after the exposition, Native Americans chose to join the shows and seized the opportunity of self-representation.
What can entertainment bring to the subordinated people?
By performing at the Columbian Exposition, Native Americans achieved three things, first, revitalizing their culture, second, representing themselves as resilient people who survived the wars against white Americans as well as cultural oppression and third, realizing relatively equal stands with white-American employers. At nowhere but the entertainment space, might all of these things have happened. The entertainment had a significant meaning to Native Americans. Furthermore, the entertainment industry can be a universal strategy to other marginalized people, which sets them free from the structure of domination, allows them to define their own identity and represent it on the stage.
Native-American performers might have been aware of the benefit for the entertainment business to them. The performers and chose to perform at the entertainment spaces on their own, rather than being forced to do so. According to Clyde Ellis, it was Native Americans’ choice to perform in various shows such as Wild West shows as well as traveling carnivals[86]. She notes, “Show Indians knew that performing was neither a culturally moribund act nor a clear-cut case of victimization.[87]” Then why did they choose it? It was because the border between fiction and reality becomes obscure on the show stages. Ellis quotes the comments of Walter Barrice, a performer for the Miller Brothers’ show; “[y]ou can bet I saw all the law would allow me.”[88]. On the stages, their important culture could be presented freely while it was oppressed by the law. In such a distinctive place where the border between fiction and reality becomes obscure, Native-American performers could become free from political oppression, and proudly show their culture.
Moreover, Native Americans could represent themselves on the stage. In the political discussion, Native Americans’ self-representation was ignored. They had to be represented by white Americans for political and ideological interests. Although the performers at the exposition were directed by white Americans, they had some latitude in how they performed and how they represented themselves through their act. Their every movement, every action was their representation and what the audiences saw. In other words, on the stages, Native Americans could represent themselves without being represented by others. That was the distinctive feature of entertainment. What entertainment brought to Native Americans was, a special space where they became free from political oppression, resisted the politically forced definition, and defined and represented themselves by their own.
Bibliography
Bank, Rosemarie K. “Representing History: Performing the Columbian Exposition.” Theatre Journal, Vol. 54, No. 4, Re-Thinking the Real, 2002: 589-606.
Jacknis, Ira. “All the World Is Here: Anthropology on Display at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.” Geological Lecture Hall, 24 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum, December 6, 2017.
New York Times. “Miss Sickels Makes Charges -Tells Why There Are No Civilized Indians at the Fair-.” October 8, 1893: 19.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. All the World Is Here: Anthropology on Display at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2019.
Rinehart, Melissa. “To Hell with the Wigs! Native American Representation and Resistance at the World’s Columbian Exposition.” American Indian Quarterly 36, no. 4, 2012: 403-42. .
Robinson, Charles M., and Walter Scribner Schuyler. “Brigadier General George Crook’s ‘Horse Meat March’ and the Fight at Slim Buttes: A Letter by Walter Scribner Schuyler.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 56, no. 1, 2006: 42-49.
Schoenberger, Dale T. “Custer’s Scouts.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 16, no. 2, 1966: 40-49.
Silkenat, David. “Workers in the White City: Working Class Culture at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-) 104, no. 4, 2011: 266-300.
Slotkin, Richard. Gunfighter Nation; The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992.
Trennert A.Robert. “Selling Indian Education at World’s Fairs and Expositions, 1893-1904.” American Indian Quarterly 11, no. 3, 1987: 203-20.
[1] Robert A. Trennert. (1987). “Selling Indian Education at World’s Fairs and Expositions, 1893-1904.”. American Indian Quarterly 11, no.3, 203-20. p.204
[2] Ibid.
[3] Melissa Rinehart. (2012). “To Hell with the Wigs! Native American Representation and Resistance at the World’s Columbian Exposition.” American Indian Quarterly 36, no. 4 , 403-42. p.404
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Richard Slotkin. Gunfighter Nation; The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992. p.63
[7] Ibid.
[8] Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. 2019.
[9] David Silkenat. “Workers in the White City: Working Class Culture at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-) 104, no. 4 (2011): 266-300. p.289
[10] Slotkin 1992, p.63
[11] Ibid.
[12] Slotkin 1992, p.64
[13] Slotkin 1992, p.63
[14] Rinehart 2012, p.411
[15] Ira Jacknis. (2017, December 6). “All the World Is Here: Anthropology on Display at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.” Geological Lecture Hall, 24 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, Massachusetts, U.S.: Peabody Museum.
[16] Jacknis 2017
[17] Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. 2019.
[18] Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. 2019.
[19] Rosemarie K. Bank 2002. “Representing history: Performing the Columbian Exposition.” Theatre Journal 54 (4): 589-606. p.592
[20] Ibid.
[21] Trennert 1987, p.205
[22] Rinehart 2012, p.408
[23] New York Times. “Miss Sickels Makes Charges -Tells Why There Are No Civilized Indians at the Fair-.” October 8, 1893: 19.
[24] Bank 2002, p.593
[25] Ibid.
[26] Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. 2019.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Rinehart 2012, p.413
[33] Bank 2002, p.591
[34] Slotkin 1992, p.63
[35] Bank 2002, p.604
[36] Rinehart 2012, p.408
[37] Rinehart 2012, p.424
[38] Rinehart 2012, p.408
[39] Rinehart 2012, p.409
[40] Rinehart 2012, p.410
[41] Rinehart 2012, p.409
[42] Rinehart 2012, p.410
[43] Ibid. 410
[44] Rinehart 2012, p.409
[45] Ibid.
[46] Rinehart 2012, p.410
[47] Ibid. 410
[48] Ibid. 410
[49] Rinehart 2012, p.419
[50] Rinehart 2012, p.419-20
[51] Slotkin 1992, p.68
[52] Slotkin 1992, p.68
Deadwood is a city of South Dakota where George Crook’s command attacked Lakota reservation in 1876, wore down the warriors and marked the turning point for white American army after their defeat in Little Big Horn two month earlier.
Charles M. Robinson, and Walter Scribner Schuyler. “Brigadier General George Crook’s ‘Horse Meat March’ and the Fight at Slim Buttes: A Letter by Walter Scribner Schuyler.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 56, no. 1 (2006): 42-49. p.43
[53] Slotkin 1992, p.77
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Slotkin 1992, p.80
[57] Ibid.
[58] Slotkin 1992, p.69
[59] Ellis 1999, p.142
[60] Slotkin 1992, p.67
[61] Ibid.
[62] Slotkin 1992, p.69
[63] Bank 2002, p.603
[64] Ellis 1999, p.137
[65] Rinehart 2012, p.421
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Ellis 1999, p.142
[69] Slotkin 1992, p.68
[70] Bank 2002, p.605
[71] Ellis 1999, p.142
[72] Ibid.
[73] Bank 2002, p.605
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ellis 1999, p.143
[76] Rinehart 2012, p.424
[77] Rinehart 2012, p.412
Crow, a Native American tribe fought the wars in the 1860s and ‘70s with U.S. military. Curly was one of the scouts for Custer and witnessed his defeat from the distance.
Dale T. Schoenberger. “Custer’s Scouts.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 16, no. 2 (1966): 40-49. p.49
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Rinehart 2012, p.412
[82] Rinehart 2012, p.425
[83] Rinehart 2012, p.421
[84] Rinehart 2012, p.426
[85] Ibid.
[86] Ellis 1999, p.142
[87] Ibid.
[88] Ibid.
Angles 