LITR 5731: Seminar in
American Multicultural Literature
Student Research Project
Anuruddha Ellakkala
Research Journal
From Free Land to Reservations, from Reservations to Museums
Introduction:
As I researched the subject of American Indians, I found that there are more than one hundred and fifty million “tribal people” worldwide in more than sixty countries. According to the anthropological evidence, these tribes are disappearing from the earth. Native Americans are among these tribes. In the early centuries, they were victims of European Americans. Even today Native Americans are victims of the dominant American culture. Before, they fought with European-Americans for the sake of their lands and lost. Then, many of them involuntarily embraced the dominant culture for their survival, yet they often failed. According to my research, they were nearly always cheated by the white men. Even though Natives sometimes tried to merge into the dominant culture, their culture will never blend with the dominant culture.
Native Americans were the earliest human beings in America. According to scientists, their ancestors migrated to America between “15,000 and 9,000 BC” from Siberia across the “Bering Land Bridge” (The Bering Strait Land Bridge theory). Until Christopher Columbus discovered the new world from Europe in 1492, Native Americans were independent people in their own land; however, in the 16th century mass British migration totally changed Natives’ original condition. Within a few decades, Native Americans lost their people, lands, and bison. In the meantime, they became a minority in their own country. Moreover, their voices were not listened to and their choices were not regarded by the dominant culture. Finally, Native Americans wanted to assimilate into the dominant culture for their survival. Similarly, many white Americans wanted to adapt Native Americans into their culture. However, this never happened. According to my research, Native Americans’ assimilation into the dominant culture was an illusion. If we look closely at their present condition, Native Americans in twenty-first century encounter the same problems as before. They are still the losers. Therefore, Native Americans can neither assimilate into the dominant culture, nor maintain their cultural identities while co-habiting with the dominant immigrant culture.
My research journal is based on Course Objective 1 and Objective 4. Objective 1 covers three specific areas of American minorities: 1a “Involuntary participation,” 1b “Voiceless and choiceless,” and 1c “To observe alternative identities and literary strategies developed by minority cultures and writers to gain voice and choice.” Objective 4 is the “minority dilemma of assimilation or resistance.” Similarly 4a is “To identify the ‘new American’ who crosses, combines, or confuses ethnic or gender identities,” and 4b is “To distinguish the ideology of American racialism—which sees races as pure, separate, and permanent identities” (LITR 5731 Course syllabus Spring 2006). These two course objectives and their divisions are equally relevant to African Americans as well as to Native Americans. However, while staying in the frame of these objectives, I limit my journal discussion only to the Native American minorities.
Section 1
The seed of the thought of this research journal is from John G. Neihardt’s Black Elk Speaks and Peter Blue Cloud’s poem, “Crazy Horse Monument.” Since I was assigned to give presentations about Black Elk and “Crazy Horse Monument” in this course, I was curious to learn more about the Native American. Therefore, the first portion of this journal is about the classic Native American warriors and chiefs, such as Black Elk, Chief Seattle, and Chief Joseph. Rather than exploring their biographical stories in detail, I wanted to remain in our course objectives. For this reason, I paid my attention to the famous Native Americans and their struggle for survival. The second portion of the journal is about the contemporary Native Americans and their alternative suggestions to re-establish their religious, cultural, and educational values against the dominant culture. To discuss this point in my journal, I used several web articles.
Black Elk:
Black Elk is one of the great and intelligent leaders of the Lakota Sioux nations who first resist dominant culture and later tries for an alternative solution for their survival. According to his own words in John G. Neihardt’s Black Elk Speaks, he has three missions as a leader. At the early age of his life, he is a great warrior. Then, he becomes a medicine man. At the end, he dies as a Catholic man. Black Elk assimilates into the dominant culture for his people’s survival; however, as a warrior he does not tolerate injustice by the dominant culture. He fights for the independence of his people. The only reason for him to abandon his fight is Red Cloud’s intuition. According to Red Cloud, Natives cannot continue their fighting due to their weak condition. Otherwise, Black Elk would battle against white people. Black Elk says:
Our party wanted to go out and fight anyway, but Red Cloud made a speech to us something like this: “Brothers, this is a very hard winter. The women and children are starving and freezing. If this were summer, I would say keep on fighting to the end. But we cannot do this. We must think of the women and children and that it is very bad for them. So we must make peace, and I will see that nobody is hurt by the soldiers.” (207)
Black Elk says, “The people agreed to this [Red Cloud’s wise decision], for it was true” (207). It is clear that Black Elk has no faith in the dominant culture. Yet, he has to listened people’s voice and understands useless resistance with white people. Whether assimilation works for Black Elk and his people or not, strategically they have to embrace European-American culture for their survival.
For example, when Neihardt converses with Black Elk, Black Elk is an assimilated person of the dominant culture. Yet, his speaking is still offensive to the dominant culture. Throughout his conversation, Black Elk never says, “Let’s forget the past and work together.” Instead, Black Elk argues that white people “had no right to go in there, because all that of the country was ours. Also the Wasichus had made a treaty with Red Cloud (1868) that said it would be ours as long as grass should grow and water flow” (60). Furthermore, on pages 69, 80, and 96 of Black Elk Speaks, Black Elk reiterates two sentences: “We were in our own country” and “we only wanted to be let alone.” Even though Black Elk speaks the truth, these reiterations raise questions about his assimilation and conversion.
Black Elk’s decision to alter his religious identity is political. For instance, Bruce A. Peterson says after the massacre of Wounded Knee, a frustrated and defeated Black Elk converted to Catholicism and assimilated into the main stream. Peterson reports, “When ask why [did so] he said, ‘My children have to live in this world’” (A Spirit Vision Written in Ink). Further, Peterson point out, “DeMallie and Kehoe imply that Black Elk became a Catholic for reasons of social expediency but remained a traditional Lakota at heart” (A Spirit Vision Written in Ink). Moreover, Peterson believes that DeMallie accurately interprets Neihardt's discussion. Demallie says Neihardt's discussion in 1931 “reawakens the old man's hope and renews the traditionalist that has been buried since his conversion to Catholicism in 1904” (A Spirit Vision Written in Ink). According to these critics and Black Elk’s own expressions, his conversion to Catholicism was a painful decision. Moreover, critics prove that Black Elk did not genuinely assimilate into the dominant culture.
Chief Seattle:
On the other hand, Chief Seattle, the world-famous Native American leader, understands that the absorption of minority Indian culture into white dominant culture as a myth. This strong and eloquent leader became well known because of his “magnificent speech at the presentation of the treaty proposals in 1854” (Chief Seattle). A writer reports, “It is the speech of a man who has seen his world turned upside down in his own lifetime” (Chief Seattle). He is an exceptionally clever person because he appears able to understand white people’s true intentions. Seattle knows that all the treaties, proposals, and agreements are not for their survival but for the white settlers’ benefit. He does not think white people regard them as human beings. He believes that missionaries’ engagement in their territories is the government’s plan, and he thinks their mission is Native Indians’ cultural and religious destruction. Even though Indians are converted to Catholicism, they are different from white people. Therefore, Seattle is able to understand their assimilation into the western culture and their conversion to the western religion as illusions.
Seattle clearly understands that Native Indians cannot assimilate into the dominant culture. He says, “We are two distinct races with separate origins and separate destinies. There is little in common between us” (Smith). He clearly states, “Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea” (Smith). According to Seattle, these two separate humans do not get along with each other like “Day and night cannot dwell together” (Smith). Further, he says, “The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun” (Smith). Seattle’s artistic and analytical statements indicate uncommon identities of the two cultures. His metaphorical words “day” and “sun” are able to portray the destructive nature of dominant culture. Meanwhile, the words “night’ and “mist” portray the destruction of the tribal culture.
Even though Indians assimilate into the dominant culture, Seattle strongly believes his people cannot trust the Christian God similar to white people. Seattle clearly says, “The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors” (Smith). He says to white people, “Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine” (Smith). Seattle argues their conversion to Catholicism as in vain:
The white man’s God cannot love our people or He would protect them. They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help. How then can we be brothers? How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness? (Smith)
Whether Native tribes assimilated into the dominant culture or not, they are still an outcast people of that culture. Whether they converted into the western religion or not, they are still an alienated people from the western church. Cleverly, Seattle manifests that truth; he says, “He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son. But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His” (Smith). Seattle discredits the Christian God because of his people. Native people are not strong enough to make their voices and choices heard because God is biased toward white men. Seattle says, “Your God makes your people wax stronger every day. Soon they will fill all the land. Our people are ebbing away
like a rapidly receding tide that will never return” (Smith). Seattle is doubtful about the future existence of his people. Seattle thinks Native Indians are voiceless and choiceless and the only choice is involuntary surrender into the dominant power or finding a strategic way to gain their voice and choice while co-habiting with the dominant culture.
Chief Joseph:
Chief Joseph is another well-known Native American leader who combined with white culture when he born and later fought against to it. According to the PBS web site, he “was born in the Wallowa Valley in what is now northeastern Oregon in 1840” (Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt 1840-1904). His tribal name is Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt, but he was known as Joseph because his father was converted to Christianity. When Joseph became the leader of their nation, he says that “the federal government took back almost six million acres of their land” (Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt 1840-1904), restricting them to a reservation. Even though Joseph was never regarded as a warrior, he was “widely referred to in the American press as ‘the Red Napoleon’” (Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt 1840-1904). As I read, in 1871, Joseph’s relationship with white Americans broke down because white people betrayed his people again and again. Joseph and his people fought for six years; however, after they lost many lives, in 1877 he voluntarily surrendered to the white people; he died in 1904. In his last years, Joseph spoke “eloquently against the injustice of United States policy toward his people” (Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt 1840-1904). In his speeches, Joseph always questioned Americans’ commitment to their promise of freedom and equality.
Joseph beseechingly asks rulers of dominant culture to be truthful and treat them equally if rulers regard Indians as their peoples. According to Joseph, the rulers are always heavy with flattery and empty words. He says, “They all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done” (Nez Perce Chief). Joseph says the rulers generously treat them with many promises, but these promises are just empty words; he argues that this flattery: “Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. [Joseph says] I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises” (Nez Perce Chief). People of the dominant culture always vow to grant freedom and equal opportunities for Native people. Joseph realizes they cannot think about their survival until dominant people practically do it. Therefore, Joseph asks white people to: “Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow” (Nez Perce Chief). Joseph earnestly asks white people let their voiceless and choicless people also live in this earth and raise their children like other people in the world.
Joseph asks white Americans at least to think of their voiceless and choiceless Native peoples as human beings. He clearly states that if white people do not treat Natives humanly, Natives American cannot survive in this earth any longer. He says, “When I think of our condition, my heart is heavy. I see men of my own race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals” (Nez Perce Chief). Joseph painfully questions about the values of civilized people. If civilized people know basic human values at least, he says, “We [tribal] only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men.” (Nez Perce Chief). According to Natives’ pathetic condition in his age, Joseph never believed white people would ever treat read people equally or even humanely. He says, “We [Natives] were like deer. They [white people] were like grizzly bears. We had small country. Their [white peoples’] country was large. We [Indians] were contented to let things remain as the Great Spirit Chief made them. They [white peoples] were not, and would change the rivers and mountains if they did not suit them” (Chief Joseph). Joseph’s realization of Native people’s condition is very similar to Chief Seattle’s realization. And joseph’s metaphorical depiction white American and Native American is also similar to Seattle’s. They are victims of the dominant culture. Therefore, Joseph understands that Native people cannot keep their tribal identity any longer.
As I explore so far, Black Elk, Chief Seattle, and Chief Joseph were able to understand consequences of the resistance with white sovereignty. Even though they had to abandon their cultural and religious values, for their survival, they involuntarily assimilate into the cultural and religious values of dominant culture. Even so, their voice and choice doomed by the dominant power. These leaders believe that Indians can physically exist, yet their culture gradually perishing away. However, new Indian generation want to re-establish their voice, choice, cultural values.
Contemporary Indian such as Vernon Bellecourt, Dick Littlebear, and minority writer Sandy Gonzalez suggest that Indians should fight back for rights and cultural identity. Even though they do not encourage Indians to go against the white culture and to destroy villages and towns and build their tepees every corner of the country and to give back white peoples farm lands for bison again, whether it fruitful or not, they want to re-establish their cultural values, language, and their own educational system for Indians. Otherwise, contemporary Native Americans think they are spiritually genocide by the western culture and western education.
Section 2
Conforming unstable situation of contemporary Native Americans, they represent only a small percentage of the American population. According to their own expressions, they are still “victims of spiritual, cultural and physical genocide at the hand of the American imperialists and their settler regimes” (Vernon). Apparently, they cannot forget their past and assimilate into dominant culture. They understand their present situation is similar to the situation their forefathers experienced centuries ago. Therefore, current Native Americans try to find alternative solutions for their survival. Now, many are against the Christian missionaries. As they experience more violence, drugs, alcohol, extreme poverty, and high teen pregnancy in their societies, they regard this capitalistic American dominant culture as not for them. Furthermore, they think they should stay away from the American education system. They believe their education system should be based on tribal culture rather than the English culture. They should give priority to the tribal languages and the English language in their classroom. Clearly, they are trying to find some alternative identities, voices and choices against the dominant culture.
Vernon Bellecourt & AIM:
According to the details of Interview with Vernon Bellecourt, Vernon Bellecourt, who fights for cultural identity, is a rebellious member of 20th century Indians. He belongs to Chippewa tribe of the Lakota nation and his tribal name is “WaBun-Inini” (An Phoblacht). When An Phoblacht interviewed Vernon in 1995, he “ha[d] been a political activist and spokesperson for Native Americans for over 25 years” (An Phoblacht). His lifetime dedication for tribal people is not only limited to the Native Americans but also he dedicates for Native Indians in the other countries. An unknown writer says in 1974 he was imprisoned by US government because he threw his blood into the Guatemalan Embassy when he was protesting against the killing of 100,000 Indians in Guatemala (Vernon Bellecourt). According to the reference of same unknown writer, “He was elected to a 4-year term in his White Earth tribal government” (Vernon Bellecourt). As the president of that organization, he is able to introduce a practical program that can help Indian prisoners to rehabilitate their depressed mental condition.
Moreover, Vernon is the founder of the American Indian Movement. The American Indian Movement (AIM) is one of the important political movements of contemporary Native Americans. AIM strongly stands against dominant people’s human rights violations. As a matter of fact, Vernon says, “AIM was born out of the dark violence of police brutality and the voiceless despair of Indian people in the courts of Minneapolis, Minnesota” (An Phoblacht). Dominant people always treat minority people unfairly because of that Native needed a strong shield for their survival. Vernon explains AIM members are fearless people; he says that “They are the catalyst for Indian sovereignty. From the outset AIM people are tough people, they had to be” (An Phoblacht). Vernon and his team not only stand for the basic human rights of the minority Americans but also they should re-establish their past tribal dignity. Vernon says:
For centuries our people have been the victims of spiritual, cultural and physical genocide at the hands of the American imperialist and their settler regimes. AIM recognized the need very early on to start our own schools where we teach our own culture, language, music and art. These Heart of the Earth Survival schools have become a model that others have followed. (An Phoblacht)
The word “genocide” is very familiar to Indians because dominant people massacred their forefathers. Vernon and his people think western education is spiritually and culturally destroying them. Therefore, they think the education should change for them. Vernon explains, “AIM is first, a spiritual movement, a religious re-birth, and then the re-birth of dignity and pride in a people...” (AIM. . . What is It). For this reason, they invoke their ancestral warriors’ spirits to possess them and strengthen their spirits. Vernon regards AIM members as contemporary Indian heroes; he says, “The American Indian Movement is then, the Warrior class of this century, who are bound to the bond of the Drum, who vote with their bodies instead of their mouths, their business is hope” (An Phoblacht). AIM’s hope is an alternative solution for their survival. They strongly think western culture and education ruin their tribal identity.
Dick Littlebear:
Littlebear, contemporary Native American writer, is trying to restore pure, separate, and permanent identities against to dominant culture. Even though the writer’s name is still known among readers, his critical essay, “Effective Language Education Practices and Native Language Survival,” has drawn attention of the editors and the critics. The writer is a well-educated person; his education was nourished by the education of dominant culture. In some extent, the writer is able to appreciate his education. However, he agues that dominant people education not appropriate for Native People. He complains western education only represents White people’s cultural values and philosophy. Hence, it never fits into the Native American issues. If one asks him why your parents and grandparents encouraged you and your people to have White people’s education, he might say, “Read my essay you may find answers for that question.” Throughout his essay he emphasizes Native’s voiceless and choiceless situation in dominant culture. Beside that Littlebear says, “I further believe that our chiefs from the past would have wanted us to get educated because they would have seen in an appropriate education the means of language and cultural survival” (Littlebear). According to the writer’s explanation, Native people did not embrace western education before; they do not welcome it even today. According to the writer’s words, white people education was merely a strategic plan for their survival.
Littlebear does not believe their Native fathers’ plan worked for their survival. Instead, he says, “It is difficult for our Native American languages and cultures to survive and it will get more difficult” (Littlebear). The author emphasizes that the education of the dominant culture swallows up their languages and cultures. For him, Native peoples’ survival is not only maintaining their lives as Indian until natural death. Their language and rich culture should exist in this world to maintain their self-identity as Native peoples:
I have deep respect for our native ceremonies, our languages, and our cultures because they have meaningful and enduring qualities from which we can learn. They have had these qualities for thousands of years. I believe these qualities are what have been missing from the white man's educational systems. For that reason we should seek to perpetuate our cultures and languages. (Littlebear)
The writer contemplates on Native peoples’ rich values and says they are historical human race in the world. He tries to open the eyes of his readers and says their language and culture will not secondary to the other languages and cultures in the world. Yet, he is disturbed because he believes the education system of the dominant culture doom all the qualities of their language and culture. As a matter of fact, the author points out that “Native American students have the highest dropout rates when measured by any criteria. These dropout rates are rapidly becoming a Native American academic tradition” (Littlebear). The writer explains why dropout rates increase among the Native students. He says, “It is a tradition that is being forced on us; it is a tradition with no cultural basis” (Littlebear). Littlebear feels White people’s academic tradition does not address Native students real issues. Therefore, the writer encourages and suggests his Native people prepare for a new revolution; he states:
This means we must devise our own strategies to counter the negative effects of cultural transition. Especially since this cultural transition is being complicated by alien organizational systems, by high technology, by alcohol, by drugs, by ambiguous values, by exploding populations, by erosion of language and culture, and by a shrinking world which brings new demands that impact daily the remotest villages and reservations. (Littlebear)
Littlebear complains about dominant cultural values and education. According to his point of view, true or not, all the negative qualities and sufferings that the Natives experience today are because of western education and culture. Another researcher also mentions, “The Native American population of the United States experiences more violence, drug and alcohol abuse, illiteracy, incarceration, and unemployment per capita than any other minority” (Hill). Similar to Littlebear, Hill also suggests that the education of Native Americans should be based on their culture. No doubt, Hill’s suggestion may boost Littlebear’s idea.
Sandy Gonzalez:
Compared to the Native Indian chiefs and the writers that I have discussed so far, Gonzalez is an independent American minority writer who encourages Indians to fight back for their cultural survival. Because I cannot easily find biographical factors of the writer, I cannot give precise detail about the writer and his relationship with the Native American. Similar to Dick Littlebear’s critical essay, Gonzalez’s “Intermarriage and Assimilation: The Beginning or the End” is a crucial and critical essay for the white American as well as the Native American. The author censures dominant culture and its policy, yet he sympathizes with indigenous people. Gonzalez says, “Beginning with outright acts of brutality and later developing into United States governmental policy, the dominant society continues to oppress Native Americans. Unfortunately, white society has made assimilation almost, if not completely, inevitable” (48). No doubt, the writer is referring back to the early centuries of American history and the settlements of European-Americans, their brutal war, and their policies toward Red Indians.
Gonzalez is pessimistic about Native Indian’s future. According to the writer, Native people struggle to maintain their social and economic condition. Yet, he points out, “In the 1880s, Native Americans had been viewed as a people moving from a lower to a higher stage of development. By 1920, this attitude had vanished” (48). The author describes Native peoples’ desire and effort for their economical progress and ethical values, yet he says minority Indians’ courage have been doomed before the mighty force of dominant culture like the moon before the sun; Gonzalez says:
Virtually all native partners will become absorbed into the dominant culture to a greater or lesser degree. Some will abandon their cultural heritage altogether, while others will make only small accommodations. For most of this century, anthropologists and other social scientists have been predicting that Native Americans as a cultural group will disappear due to poverty, disease and the demands of Western culture. (51)
Although Native political activist Vernon Bellecourt and critical writer Dick Littlebear are optimistic about their survival and encourage Indian tribes to fight back, Gonzalez says Native people’s survival is uncertain due to the racial discrimination of dominant culture. Gonzalez declares, “Although too many aspects of this racism unfortunately still exist, most intellectuals and proponents of white supremacy have realized that assimilation, and not violence, may lead to the disappearance of the American Indian” (48). The writer indicates that dominant culture never expects to see minority Indians fight back for their rights and cultural identity. In these circumstances, if Native people are to live in their own lands like it or not, they have to assimilate into dominant culture. Gonzalez believes this assimilation will wreck their authentic identity and relegate their historical memories to museums.
Conclusion:
In the early centuries, Native Americans were victims of European Americans. Even today, Natives are victims of the dominant American culture. Voiceless and choiceless Native Americans involuntarily embraced the dominant culture for their survival. Even though they tried to merge into the dominant culture, their culture will never blend with the dominant culture. According to my research, Native Americans’ assimilation into the dominant culture is a myth. Therefore, Native Americans can neither assimilate into the dominant culture nor maintain their cultural identities while co-habiting with the dominant immigrant culture. Some of the courageous contemporary Indians try to fight back for their survival. Their attempt temporarily can delay their sad situation. There are no forces to shield their culture from the threat of dominant culture. If they try to live in isolation, they may be killed by hunger or diseases. If they decide to live in civilized society, they may lose their Native identity. Original Native Indian tribes and their culture and blood will disappear from the earth one day. They may live in hybrid Americans’ blood and their proud memories may be limited to museums.
Works Cited
An Phoblacht. “Interview with Vernon Bellecourt.” 4 May 1995. 30 April 2006. <http://www.dickshovel.com/belle.html>
AIM. . . What is It? 01 january 1993. 03 Aprial 2006. <http://www.dickshovel.com/AIMdeclara.html>Bruce A. Peterson, “A Spirit Vision Written in Ink.” The Two Masks of Nicholas Black Elk. 29 April 2006. <http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~vocewld/voicewld/Black- Elk.html#Introduction>
Chief Seattle. 27 April 2006. <http://www.chiefseattle.com/history/chiefseattle/chief.htm>
Gonzalez, Sandy. “Intermarriage and Assimilation: The Beginning or the End?” WicazoSa Review, 8.2 (Autumn, 1992) 48-52. JSTOR. 26 Oct 2006 <http://www.jstor.org/>
-Heinmot Tooyalaket (Chief Joseph), Nez Perce. 24 April 2006. <http://www.greatdreams.com/wisdom.htm#Big>
Hill, F. Lloydene. “Alternative Educational Models For Native American Students: Why Are They Needed.” Alternative Educational Models for Native American Students, (Ed June 15, 2001). 20 April 2006 <http://www.authorsden.com/>
Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt 1840-1904. “Chief Joseph.” 28 April 2006. <http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/a_c/chiefjoseph.htm>
Littlebear, Dick. “Effective Language Education Practices and Native Language Survival.” Native American Language Issues, Ed. Reyhner, Jon. (1990): 1- 8. 20 April 2006 <http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/>
Neihardt, G, Jhon. “Balck Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux.” New York. 2000.
Nez Perce Chief. “Chief Joseph Speaks Selected Statements and Speeches” 25 April 2006. <http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/six/jospeak.htm>
Sanchez, Mark. “Black Elk Speaks.” 29 April 2006
<http://nieveroja.colostate.edu/issue4/black.htm>
Smith, Henry A. “Scraps from a Diary: Chief Seattle—A gentleman by Instinct His Native Eloquence, etc., etc.” October 29, 1887. 24 April 2006 <http://www.chiefseattle.com/history/chiefseattle/speech/speech.htm>
“The Bering Strait Land Bridge theory.” Native Americans in the United States. 27 April 2005. 20 April 2006
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
Vernon, Bellecourt. “Native Americans—nations in struggle for survival.” 4 May 1995.20 April 2006 <http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/41/027.html>
Vernon Bellecourt. 02 May 2006. <http://www.aics.org/NCRSM/id31_m.htm>