Wounded Knee Wounded Knee Massacre is the last large conflict between Native Indians and the troops of the United States. This event was long considered an honored battle where United States soldiers gained a great victory, however when more facts on the event became known Wounded Knee became referred to as a massacre. It was a provoked and orchestrated conflict, which resulted in shooting 350 unarmed civil prisoners of war, most of whom where women and children. Half of the Indians were killed and wounded, half announced missing. Richard W. Hill Sr. wrote research article on this issue, which I am going to analyze in my work. The article is called “Wounded Knee, a Wound that Won't Heal” and is placed on First Nations Issues of Consequence web-site, which is dedicated to American-Indian War and contains works by various authors on numerous battles, massacres, treaties and frauds that took place. Wounded Knee Massacre is such a terrible fact in the history of this war that authors of the site created a separate sub-site dedicated exactly to this event. I looked through the material posted on the web-site and considered the article by Hill to be the most informative, detailed and argumentative. Collecting information on the massacre Hill used historical references from The Official Bulletin National Indian War Veterans U.S.A. Overall the article contains 37 references, which proves serious research work made by the author prior to writing the article and developing arguments. Another reason why I believe Richard Hill to be an authority on the issue is the fact that he wrote and edited numerous other books on American Indian history and culture. Among those are Creation's Journey: Native American Identity & Belief, Native American Dance: Ceremonies & Social Traditions, Treasures of the National Museum of the American Indian: Smithsonian Institution (Tiny Folios Series), Gifts of the Spirit : Works by Nineteenth-Century and Contemporary Native American Artists, St. James Guide to Native North American Artists, etc. The Wounded Knee Massacre happened on December 29, 1890. The article I am analyzing was written hundred years later – in 1999. From one side there is a doubt whether events can be correctly interpreted after such a long time. From the other side there are fewer reasons to hide the truth now: political situation has changed, international fight for minorities’ rights protection and numerous organizations that fight for human rights changed attitude towards Native Americans. Today researchers have access to materials that were secret before. Thus references that date back to the time of the event and contemporary freedom of speech made it possible to reveal the truth and write an article, which possibly would not come to our days if it was written back in 1890s. The very fact that participants of that massacre received Medals of Honor demonstrates the attitude of the United States government towards such “battles” at that time. Truth is the one no matter when you recall this event, now or a few days after the tragedy. You cannot change the fact that there were 500 well armed soldiers on one side and 350 unarmed civilians, including 230 women and children, on the other. You cannot change the fact that in result 153 Indians were killed, 50 were wounded and the rest announced missing. Losses of the American troops were much smaller - 25 killed and 39 wounded, most of which were shot by their comrades in the chaos of massacre. There were other similar “battles”, one of which is the massacre of Cheyenne Indians at Sand Creek, Colorado Territory on November 29, 1864, which is named as a battle in the U.S. Army documents even though there was no serious armed resistance from the Indian side. Interesting thing that Hill pays our attention to is that when Indians kill white soldiers in battles it was usually named a massacre, e.g.: Fetterman Massacre of December 21, 1866, however when it comes to military killing large numbers of Indians who are not necessarily armed males, it was usually considered to be a great and honored battle. So who assigns the definitions of what to be called a battle and what to be called a massacre? Of course the side that won the war and writes the history books. The case of the Wounded Knee is especially shameful for American troops, because the killed Indians where prisoners of war and were in majority children and women. So why would Congress award participants of this massacre more Medals of Honor than there were ever awarded for any other military action in American history? There must have been a reason. And the reason according to Hill was to create an image of honorable battle so that nobody can even question whether it was legitimate and just. Anybody who would attempt to criticize the action at that time would be claimed to be unpatriotic, therefore I believe that telling the truth about the Wounded Knee is much easier nowadays that it used to be back then. Hill did a great job telling the story of the Wounded Knee Massacre. He gave not only the fact of the battle itself, he depicted situation that was in the country at the time of the massacre, events that lead to the tragedy, attitudes of the politicians towards Native Americans in general, problem of the land distribution, their culture and lifestyle, which were different from those of new American citizens who were at that time the majority. Personally I liked quotes by outstanding personalities of that time that Hill used in order to reveal the truth about Indian-American war. One of such is the statement by Colonel Richard I. Dodge, an aide to General W.T. Sherman, who argued that “there were three principal causes of wars with the Indians: 1) nonfulfillment of treaties by the United States Government; 2) frauds by the Indian agents; 3) encroachments by the whites.” Colonel Richard I. Dodge knew what he was talking about as he lived at that time, took part in armed conflicts and wars. Even though Dodge perceived Indians as “cruel and duplicitous barbarians who committed depredations upon whites” he still demonstrated some respect to fairness by admitting the reasons, which pushed Indians into cruelty. Hill writes: “the army officers knew that without the ability to hunt buffalo, without an inclination to farm and without the rations promised by treaty, the Indians would likely revolt, thereby providing the justification for military force.” Politicians and army officers studied Indians well enough to know what is crucial for them and thus knew what they should take away in order to provoke them into a conflict and thus justify their extermination. Another famous personality of that time who was greatly involved into Indian-American conflict was General Phillip Sheridan. Hill quoted this famous Indian fighter as well. Twelve years earlier than the Wounded Knee Massacre happened Sheridan made a statement, according to which there were two types of Indian wars. The first type was the result of the United Stated government taking “away their country and their means of support, [broking] up their mode of living, their habits of life, [introducing] disease and decay among them.” Sheridan justified Indian reaction in this case since they were defending their families and communities, their own existence on their land. The second type of the war indicated by Sheridan was caused by cheating done upon Indians, when they agreed to give away their land and submit to being locked into reservations in return of provision promised by the United States. Indians kept their word while the government did not meet the promised amount of supplies. This was a cheap and fast method to get the land, underpay the price by not supplying the right amount of provision, provoke Indians into starting the fight and then exterminate them as cruel barbarians who would always start the conflict. Hill writes that the first type of the war was to some extent justified by Sheridan since conflict of cultures and fight for the land were inevitable when population of immigrants and number of United States cities grew. However Sheridan’s position on the second type was that “this type of war was preventable and ‘within our control, and we are responsible for them.’” Sheridan believed that these wars could be omitted if the government treated Indians more fairly. Whose else opinion can be more trustworthy than that of a person that was actively involved into these wars on the high army commanding level and really knew what was going on both in the American Congress and in Indian reservations? Hill also pays a lot of attention to details. As I have said he used a lot of references and quoted many personalities and documents. He tried to uncover any detail that could add to the picture of what and why happened at Wounded Knee. Hill presents evidence of the statement that the massacre was planned and orchestrated beforehand by the United States government. First of all government cut food provision they previously promised by twenty-five percent. There was an agreement between Lakota and the government on the amount of rations if the Lakota agreed to sell more land. Lakota sold the land, however the American government did not complete its obligations: cut one forth of the supplies and even the supplies delivered were not always good: “beef delivered to the Lakota was also of inferior quality.” Dr. Valentine Trant McGillycuddy, who used to be the Indian Agent of Pine Ridge said that “treaty allowance of six million pounds of food was cut to four million during that fateful winter.” Other historians also indicate that it was a bad time for such cuts because Indians suffered drought the previous summer and thus had little food, which would lead them to starvation in the situation they were forced into. The terrible thing is that American government did so not because there was little provision available but because it was a part of the plan for Native Americans extermination: “President Benjamin Harrison then asked the Secretary of the Interior to cut back on rations to the uncooperative Indians and that ‘amplest preparations should be made to suppress any outbreak that may result.’” Thus we have the quote, which proves that the revolt was not only anticipated but provoked. But did the Indians follow the provocation? Did they attack the soldiers? The army records always claimed that Big Foot, chief of this Lakota community, gathered the men and marched towards the soldiers in so-called "battle array." In reality it was not so. An Indian policeman, who witnessed the event, wrote to his sister that the massacre started after Lakota quietly gave up their arms, that only “a few escaped, and that the loss among the soldiers was caused by themselves shooting into each other." This is far from sounding like a battle between two sides, and is if even further from sounding as an attack from Lakota. In reality the movement that military described as a battle array was Big Foot's camp movement towards another agency where they were invited. Big Foot decided to move his people to another agency after his people received less provision than was promised and could die from starvation. Another letter by Dan Georgakas says: "Only purposeful malice could misread them as a war party. Big Foot hoisted a white flag for a parley but the army insisted on his unconditional surrender. The band had no choice but to be escorted to a post office near a stream called Wounded Knee," where the massacre itself happened. Another interesting detail that Hill pays attention to is the role that American troops’ cannons played in the massacre. It is known that Big Foot and the men surrendered before the massacre. There were only a few arms existed among them. The army surrounded their camp and pointed four big cannons at the tents where the families stayed. There is no agreement between historians on when the cannons opened up the fire. However we know that there was a period of hand-to-hand fight, and the period when cannons fired upon the camp tents. In any case it was clear that warriors did not hide in the tents. It was known that there were women and children who did not resist to the troops. So why they were still shot down? Why were the cannons pointed on the tents where women and children were kept? Hill asks these questions, presents evidence and leads up to make our own judgment. In order to not sound prejudiced against the American troops and telling the story from the words of Indians, Hill also uses evidence from American troops soldier. Hugh McGinnis was one of the wounded soldiers who took part in the massacre. He was in the First Battalion of the Seventh Cavalry at Wounded Knee. He witnessed as Colonel Forsyth requested Indians to surrender their arms. To which Indians did not agree, were very unpleased and “argued that they needed their old fowling pieces to kill game in order to survive. This plea failed to move Colonel Forsyth, however, and he insisted that the Sioux go back to their tents and return with their weapons.” Later McGinnis say Forsyth ordered a number of soldiers to go to the tents, search them and confiscate the Indians arms. Soldiers went to the tents and the Sioux men soon became disturbed by the cries of their women, who tried to prevent soldiers from searching and taking away their things. McGinnis says that as the Indian men became disturbed with these cries the surrounding troopers opened fire and were wildly shooting the Indian men and those who were by their side, i.e. their own comrades. At the same time the Hotchkiss guns fired upon the “women and children who had been watching the proceedings. . . . Few escaped the merciless slaughter dealt out that dreadful day by members of the Seventh cavalry. There was no discrimination of age or sex. Children as well as women with babes in their arms were brought down as far as two miles from the Wounded Knee Crossing." I believe the similar picture described by witnesses from the both sides is quite convincing and leaves little chance for labeling this as a one-sided prejudiced interpretation of the events. Hill also makes a good job arguing on the issue of whether Bog Foot’s people were prisoners or war and whether there was still a state of war at that time. Hill recalls law suite against Plenty Horse who came back from an Indian school in Pennsylvania where he had studied for 5 years just in time to witness the massacre. A few days later he killed U.S. Army lieutenant both because of the desire of revenge and because he wanted to be an Indian again. He said that five years he spent at the school he was taught to live like a white man. Then when he returned to his people, he was not seen as an Indian any more. Thus he was an outcast both for the white people and for Indians. Thus he shot the lieutenant in order to make himself a place among his people. He wanted to be one of them, to be hung, and buried by Indians as a warrior. This is what happens when people are taken away from their culture – they loose their identity, which nobody can live without, and then they try to regain that identity and their place in society by any means. I believe it was also a cruel crime to take away Indians’ lifestyle, place Indian children into schools where they were taught to forget where they come from. This is similar to pushing fish out of water – never results in any good both for the fish and for the people who come in contact with it. Since the article was written no so long ago, I am totally comfortable with the language used. Even the documentations that date back to the 19th century and are used by the author for evidence are quite easy to read. Apart from the terminology, Hill’s manner of writing, wording and the text structure are quite clear and logic. The article is written in a style of an informative-argumentative article for a wide audience. The author does not use difficult language and complicated structures apparently to make it readable for all the people who are interested in the history but are not professionals. My only comment or rather a recommendation would be to add more subtitles and break the text into parts in accordance to the evidence presented and described. This would make the text more readable and would help to find the needed quotes the next time you look for them. In all the rest I was quite comfortable both with the language and the writing style. By no doubts Hill wrote a very informative, argumentative and convincing article, which can be used as a trustworthy reference, since the author uses materials from The Official Bulletin National Indian War Veterans U.S.A., which surely has an authority in any issue from American-Indian War. Hill presents witnesses from both sides of the conflict and also quotes outstanding personalities of that time whose judgments on the issue we can trust. Hill’s own background also testifies his eligibility to form and support his argument since he has done a serious research work in the area of Native American history and culture. Bibliography Hill., Richard W. Sr. “Wounded Knee, a Wound that Won't Heal.” First Nations Issues of Consequence. 7 October 1999. Available: (15 May 2006).