The article from the Las Cruces Sun Times on August 24, 1997 indicates controversy surrounding the proposal of a monument at Little Bighorn. Unlike other such memorials, this monument is for the fallen Indians of the famed "Custer's Last Stand." For many who are of American Indian blood, this is a novel idea, but for others, this is seen as a troublesome event historically known for the fallen American soldiers. In this article from earlier this year, the controversy surrounds the construction of a monument for Indians. Despite opposition by traditionalists, history has evolved into diverse interpretations and should not be limited to the "winners" perspective. Therefore, the dedication of this monument to the fallen Indians of the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876 is necessary historically, and important to American history.
The article begins with a blunt and attention getting paragraph as it reveals the perspective from a defender of Lt. Col. George Custer. Although raising one point of view, this person associates the new monument at Little Big Horn to that of recognizing the Mexicans who died at the Alamo, and the Vietnam Memorial given to the Vietnamese. Opponents feel the monument will detract from the obelisk which is for the fallen soldiers under Custer's command. What is to be said for such adversity revolving around a noble gesture? It is obvious that the opponents are disturbed by this monument because such a notion would threaten the integrity of American History. In the case of Little Big Horn, it appears to be more important to remember Custer and his brave men than the American Indians who were killed. The "winners" view of history has been the status quo in American culture. However, as the new millennium approaches, all facets of academia have expanded into cultural diversity in history, literature, and other studies of the social sciences. For the Indian descendants of those killed at Little Big Horn, their fallen warriors and their significance to history are equally notable as Custer's defeated regiment.
What is disturbing in this article is a comment made by a New Jersey history professor, Wayne Sarf, who states that emphasizing an Indian victory would tarnish the memory of 200 U.S. soldiers. Again and as Sarf views this, the status quo of American history would be affected by such an event. Sarf and other traditionalists seem to feel such an event fuels the notion that a loss of control over history would result. From an outside point of view, seeds of American ethnocentricity and arrogance wave flags of signaling intrusion into the American history books. American history was not always pomp and circumstances. The time has come to examine the underside of American History.
For example, at least some people are uncomfortable with the thought of memorial dedicated to the Mexicans at the Alamo. Mexican history books see this event as a glorious victory. Furthermore, nothing is ever said of the atrocities done by U.S. soldiers and other Anglos who more or less took away what originally was part of Mexico. Many innocent Mexicans died as a result of American expansion. Another example is the Vietnam debacle which over 52,000 Americans servicemen lost their lives. Granted, this is a war which will be debated for generations as America lost her dignity, blood, and most importantly, the war. The Vietnamese on both sides lost millions and for some, their country. Little is said about these facts of history because Americans frown on the losers and hail the winners. History has been selective in American culture. But like the proposal at Little Big Horn, attempts are now being made to disrupt this trend in historiography and reveal other significant factors in important historical events.
Custer's Last Stand is one of the most recognized events in American history. Nothing will permanently damage the the recognition of bravery by the U.S. soldiers on that fateful day. But who is to measure the bravery of the Indians killed along the side of Custer's soldiers? For the record, the battle was not like a "Pearl Harbor" in which the united band of Indian nations inflicted an infamous act on the United States. Years had passed in which American Indians had endured hardships and a loss of their way of life. Secondly, Custer's own passion and pride are part of the reason for leading his men into the battle. This last point being well debated but not the point of this essay.
The time has come to recognize such events not in the sense of who was victorious, but like the architect for the memorial John Collins explains, as a theme of "peace through unity." Along these lines, it is difficult to assess this as a threat to American history or as a contributing factor to the loss of control in history. As progress is achieved, the conscience of people is broadened. One scholar stated the more people learn and widen their world views, the more ignorant people will become. Memorials like the one at Little Big Horn could be the examples to bridge the gap between cultures and what has been historically the "winners" and "losers."
In America today, it is important for the younger generations of Americans not only learn of Custer's Last Stand, but the Indians who fought for their land and what they believed in. Such a memorial would be a significant site and representation of one of the most important events in American history. On the other hand, it would be important to the American Indians in the region whose ancestors were adversaries at one point of time. Like the tributes paid in Hawaii between American and Japanese veterans of World War II, the scars may remain, but the theme of remembrance and peace is emphasized. Similarly, a monument at Little Big Horn would promote unity and a fairer representation of history. More importantly, future generations can learn the greater scope of American history previously inhibited by the status quo and the "winners" perspective.
�1997-1999 R.C. LEWIS
