Sitting Bull's life poetically and almost entirely encapsulates the many complex dynamics of Indian/White relations. Particularly encompassing the period of Indian Relocation, his story reveals both the sentiments and the strategies of the Lakota people, as well as the tactics of the Whites. Sitting Bull lived through some of the most vicious American policies/strategies, namely ethnocide, genocide, and ecocide. By using Sitting Bull as an exemplification, insight is revealed, into how the Indians struggled in dealing with White aggression, while attempting to maintain their culture. By viewing Sitting Bull as an epitomizing figure, one can see how the Lakota people attempted to endure, while maintaining their core values of bravery, fortitude, generosity, and wisdom.
Sitting Bull is further an epitomizing figure in that he is both a product of Indian-White relations, as well as a victim of it. From the time of his birth in 1831 to the time of his death in 1890, Sitting Bull witnessed numerous treaties broken. In his life, he saw the extent of white brutality and avarice. At the time of Sitting Bull's birth, there were over 50 million buffalo on the planes and the Lakota were living in their traditional communal bands, virtually unencumbered by White interference. By his death, the ecocide of the buffalo had diminished their numbers to less than 500, and his people were left scattered and starving in unsound reservations.
In the face of White aggression, Sitting Bull, like so many of his people, would not forsake his heritage. Demonstrating true Lakota fortitude, Sitting Bull refused to assimilate into White culture. Exemplifying bravery, in the aftermath of devastating Indian slaughter such as the Battle of Killdeer Mountain and the Sand Creek Massacre, Sitting Bull would not reject his homeland. His loyalty and devotion to his people, the land, and his culture, mirrored the sentiments of many Indians. And Sitting Bull, like many of his peers, used resistance as his early strategies toward White invasion. Epitomizing Indian self-determination, Sitting Bull set an example by resisting assimilation.
In 1881, due to cold and starvation, Sitting Bull and his band returned from Canada. After receiving no help from Canadian officials, Sitting Bull returned his people to their original homeland. The defilement and victimization of Indian nations had continued in Sitting Bull's absence. Due to the ecocide of the buffalo, the subsistence strategies of the Lakota were useless. Out of sheer desperation, many Indians agreed to be moved to reservations. Upon Sitting Bull's return, he was arrested and imprisoned for two years by the US army. Again, Sitting Bull epitomizes his people's struggle because he struggled along with them. He fought with them, starved with them, and eventually for survival; he conceded. The imprisonment was directly contrary to his nature, and as the remaining Sioux tribes capitulated, Sitting Bull had no choice but to yield to White pressure. As a true epitomizing figure, Sitting Bull's struggle mirrored his peoples, as did his ultimate concession.
Sitting Bull's prominence was undeniable. Even after his death, both Indians and Whites battled for exclusive "copyright" over the legacy of the Lakota leader. To Whites, negatively "distorting" Sitting Bull's legacy would affirm the infallibility and righteousness of their westward expansion and domination of Indian lands. Impeccable examples of the divergent images of Sitting Bull are encapsulated in 1876 at the Battle of Little Big Horn, or as the Whites' called it, Custer's Last Stand. In both White/Indian versions, Sitting Bull is the epitomizing figure.
In their typical historical distortion, Whites depicted Sitting Bull as they wished. At first as a blood thirsty tactical mastermind, and in other cases as a coward. The American "hero" in the battle was considered General George Armstrong Custer. By misrepresenting the reality and history of the situation, American aggression seemed justified and honorable. Stereotypes of brutal and maniacal Indians were reaffirmed in the press for the white public to consume. At the time this slander was successful, and sympathy of the White's grew. Unfortunately even today, American education still incorrectly portrays the reality of Little Big Horn. In White history, Sitting Bull is the epitomizing figure of the Indian, making him the ideal anti-hero to Custer's supposed valiant last stand. Certainly in this case, the reality is more compelling; a point I will return to later.
For the Lakota, and also to many other Indians, Sitting Bull is a unifier, a healer, and a seer. It was reported that his visions during the sun dance warned him of the imminent battle and Indian victory. With this knowledge, the Sioux and Cheyenne groups were able to arm themselves and prepare for the battle. Although Sitting Bull did not fight, his role in the battle was invaluable. Regardless of the idiosyncrasies of history, one must remember that the Indians were indeed the group being provoked and attacked. While knowing this, any attempts of American History to glorify Custer seems more like blatant lies and propaganda. Sitting Bull serves as an epitomizing figure at Little Big Horn in that his memory alone encapsulates the conviction and perspectives of both Indians and Whites.
One must study this history in a Lakota context, discussing the core values, social structure, and kinship of this small scale society. From this vantage we witness Sitting Bull, born into the rich plains of the Missouri river. The reality and the humanity of Sitting Bull as a man, not just a political figure, is perhaps what is most compelling. Understanding the reality of white ethnocentrism is also valuable, as some of their actions so blatantly disregarded and disrespected Indian tradition and culture as a whole. By humanizing Sitting Bull and by examining the most compelling aspects of his story, one realizes that Sitting Bull is not the mythic super hero of any group's imagination, but in reality, the tragic victim of one of the most abominable ethnocides in history.
