Edited by author 12-05-2002 04:15 PM
      The discussions in class today about Red Cloud raised an interesting contradiction that I would like to further detail. The stories in the “autobiography” were obviously centered around battles, raids, and conflicts. Most of these events were depicted as random and unprovoked, which would lead one to believe in the savageness of the Sioux as a tribe and people, but it is doubtful if this was Red Cloud's goal in telling the stories. Therefore, the war topics discussed, both vivid and descriptive, serve to make a point for both the Native American and white settler side of an interprative issue.

      For Red Cloud, these stories were boasted about in his old age as an attempt to glorify his pride and courage in his younger years. The status of a man in the Sioux tribe was determined by his actions on the battlefield, so it was essential to Red Cloud that he be depicted as having deserved his position as a respected leader. For the most part, however, these stories were for simple bragging rights, not much unlike those of a group of modern drinking buddies crowded around a bar table, bragging about and exaggerating the glory days of their younger lives. The pure element of machismo is completely relevant, and what is I believe the major theme of the stories for Red Cloud.

     On the contradictory side, war stories that depict unlawful raids and killings give every white frontiersmen his excuse to invade Indian land. It was assumed that if imperialistic ideals had been a core value in Sioux society, then the law of natural selection was simply inevitable. This inevitableness allowed white men to do the same type deeds to the Native Americans that they believed the Native Americans had done to others. The depicted war journals gave settlers more of a peace of mind in doing it, too. It’s easier on the conscience to steal from a thief or kill a murderer.

     This contradiction of themes was not clear to either side at the time of Indian land removal, but in hindsight, we can see things differently. Thus raises a segment of the question that we have discussed over and over again. When looking at a historical document, what determines how it is to be interpreted? And is it our interpretation that we should take from that document, or should we try to objectively view the issue from the author’s (or in this case, the orator’s) point of view? In other words, who plays a larger role in creating the essence of history – the author or the reader?