NativeAmericans

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

/ bigdiff / 4 Comments

The first and most famous mission on the San Antonio River was San Antonio de Valero, better known as the Alamo, which is owned by Texas and managed by a non-profit. I grew up thinking of the Alamo as a fort, but it was a Franciscan mission, first of a chain built along the river with irrigation aqueducts, ranches, orchards, farms and homes. The riverwalk that connects the World Heritage missions is a pleasant place to explore the architecture, history, and culture of the area that’s known as the heart of Texas. Alamo actually means ‘poplar’ and refers to the Cottonwood trees along the banks.

Unlike their experience with the Pueblo Revolt at Pecos and across what’s now New Mexico and Arizona, here the Spanish missionaries largely completed their religious conversion and integration of most local Native Americans, aided by intermarriage over time. In return for Catholicism, disease and obedience to the crown, Native Americans built these missions, worked in the fields and defended their new communities. In the early 1800’s Napoleon invaded Spain and put his brother on the throne, opening the door to the independence of Mexico. By 1824, Mexico was a federal Republic and the missions were secularized.

General Santa Anna had trouble maintaining control of Mexico’s northern states. American merchants sold guns to the Comanche, and then the American settlers blamed the Mexican government for not defending against Comanche raids. The Mexican government insisted that settlers convert to Catholicism and tried to ban slavery, but American colonizers like Stephen Austin promised 80 acres of land for each slave new settlers brought. Slavery was an underlying reason for the Texas Revolution, as the settlers could use them to grow cotton and didn’t want the Mexican government to halt the immoral practice. Texas statehood legalized slavery, which subsequently boomed, and then they seceded and joined the confederacy.

While I grew up hearing heroic stories of Davy Crockett, it’s impossible to ignore the legacy of both Native American and slave exploitation represented by the Alamo, first as a Spanish mission and then as a rallying cry for Texas and for slavery. The Alamo website portrays pro-slavery Texan founders Stephen Austin and Sam Houston as freedom fighters for liberty and ignores the people they enslaved. Lying to our children about the dark truth of the founding of Texas is deeply wrong, perpetuates the injustice of racism, and prevents atonement and reparations. I did not visit the Alamo.

Poverty Point National Monument

/ bigdiff / 4 Comments

Over three thousand years ago, Native Americans built something massive here with over five million man-hours of labor. I took the photo from the top of the largest bird-shaped mound built over 700 feet wide and 70 feet high. There are additional mounds in a north-south line as well as a series of three parallel ridges, forming an octagonal plaza 3/4 of a mile wide. Tools found here show that materials came from all over the greater Mississippi watershed. Artifacts show refined stonework, fired clay crafts, beads, and detailed figurines. Topography and excavation show signs of a quarry, dock, swales and a causeway, demonstrating sophisticated engineering techniques and planning for the Late Archaic. The north-south lines suggest calendar knowledge, perhaps for agriculture.

This park is another UNESCO World Heritage Site and is managed by Louisiana which charges a small fee, despite also being a NPS unit. I doubt many Americans are familiar with this site, which dates back to the Shang Dynasty in China, the first Dynasty of Babylon, the expansion of Egypt and the Ancient Greeks. Certainly it belittles the lie that the Native Americans never built anything.

Fort Scott National Historic Site

/ bigdiff / 8 Comments

Built in 1842 to defend the “permanent” frontier with Native American territory, the fort quickly fell behind events. Settlers were already moving west on the Santa Fe Trail. Within four years the actual frontier was being taken from Mexico, with cavalry “dragoons” riding a thousand miles west from here to fight in that war. The fort was abandoned in 1853 and the buildings auctioned. But the military withdrawal set the stage here for Bleeding Kansas, the conflict that presaged the Civil War. Turns out the military wasn’t needed here to keep peace between the settlers and the “warlike” Natives, but rather between the slavers and the abolitionists.

When the Supreme Court overturned the Missouri Compromise and the government passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the US government officially decided that it was best to just let the states decide on slavery by themselves. Here, the pro-slavery townspeople– and “border ruffians”–took over the fort to defend against militant abolitionists in the surrounding countryside who were determined to prevent the expansion of the moral abomination of slavery. Around 60 people were killed, including a pro-slavery former deputy marshal, whose widow is remembered for swearing revenge.

The US military returned to use the fort during the Civil War and defended it from guerrilla attacks. Both African American and Native American regiments were formed here. And after the war, soldiers were again sent west to defend the railroads against squatters who protested being cheated out of the land stolen from the natives.

While educational, I believe the park service has a responsibility to do more than simply illustrate the views of both sides. The Civil War was not “a controversy over states’ rights” nor was Bleeding Kansas merely “growing pains” as park exhibits say. The only states’ “right” being contested was the “right” to chain and breed people, on the basis of race, in perpetual ignorance and slavery, including women and children, forever. By any standard of human rights, that is not a right, but a profound moral crime. There is no legitimate justification of slavery. Perpetuating traitorous and racist views that there was any honor in fighting for slavery is dangerous to society and deeply offensive, to those held in bondage, to their descendants and to those who fought and died to end slavery in America.

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve

/ bigdiff / 1 Comment

The bison surprised me as I walked along the creek. Fortunately, there’s a barbed wire fence between us, as they can be dangerous. Unfortunately, the ranger later told me that the bison can easily go over or through the fence. The building on the hill is a one-room schoolhouse.

That there is a preserved tallgrass prairie preserve here at all is a combination of luck and innovation. The Flint Hills here make it substandard farmland in Kansas, so it was purchased by a cattleman who wanted a last stop to fatten up cattle on the local grasses before going to market. He made good money and built a big house. When big agribusiness was buying up all the land, this property had too much house and too little grazing to be profitable enough to attract decent bids. So, the Nature Conservancy takes a look, sees that the land still has the original tallgrass growing here and decides to buy the land for that, despite not buying land with houses by their previous practice. Then, the park service does a deal with them to manage the buildings for visitors, jointly protect the land and also bring back bison. The result is a lovely, quiet, natural place to visit with stone walls, a wooded hill, flowering trees, authentic prairie, historic buildings, a creek, and the occasional one ton American bison.

I’ve been wondering about how the US might atone for the Native American removal policies, and when I see all the giant corporate agribusiness land owned by the 1% around here, I wonder if maybe a tiny portion of it might be given over to a large tallgrass prairie bison ranch managed by the descendants of the Native Americans who owned the land and had it stolen. I’ve eaten commercially raised bison, and it’s at least as good as regular steak. What’s more, recreating the original ecosystem also would support additional species, like the Prairie Chicken that used to live here abundantly. While it might appear to be a net economic loss in terms of land use, adding more product diversity is good for the economy overall. Maybe throwing in some housing would be fair too.

Homestead National Historical Park

/ bigdiff / Leave a comment

I grew up reading about the frontier spirit of rugged individual homesteaders who followed their manifest destiny, tamed the wilderness and settled the country by grit, determination and hard work. Most Americans can trace their roots back to folks like these, and this view traditionally defines what it means to be an American.

But I’ve learned a few things on my way here, so it’s time for some myth busting. First, the “untamed wilderness” was already occupied by Native Americans who built homes, farmed and lived off the land. Second, the settlers received serious government assistance in the form of the US military clearing the Native Americans off the land and giving it to them. Third, the homesteaders almost immediately ruined the environment by removing the topsoil, causing the dust bowl and mass migration to California. And finally, I only see little huge corporate agribusiness here now, not individual farms.

The park is impressive, with both a state of the art Heritage Center and an Education Center. The film and museum are “award-winning”, and much of the focus appears to be on teaching kids to be proud of their homesteading ancestry. Much of the money was donated by the local fossil fuel utility, so I’m not surprised that environmental issues such as the tallgrass prairie devastation, the dust bowl and the changing climate are not the focus. But what angered me was a slight-of-hand trick employed to tell the homesteading story.

The film & exhibits make it abundantly clear that the Native Americans once lived on the land before the homesteaders settled, and the unfair history is presented in a way that kids can’t leave without learning some basic facts. However, at the beginning of the film Native Americans are described as not believing in land ownership, in the middle they say all they want is for everyone to respect the land, and at the end one Native American speaks of how he loves his reservation. And the egalitarian aspects of the Homestead Act are used to justify it: blacks could homestead (although slavery held them back at the beginning), women also benefited, and European immigrants homesteaded.

I believe it’s wrong to lie to our kids, especially to make them feel better about something that was wrong to do. The Native Americans did own the land. And the homesteaders knew it, because the newspaper ads that urged them to go west clearly said “Indian Territory Open to Homesteaders” and “Grand Rush for the Indian Territory”. They knew it, because some moved into sod pit-dwellings built by Native Americans. They knew it when they copied Native American burn techniques to encourage new growth to feed cattle. And they knew it when they grew corn in the same fields as the Native Americans. What the Natives didn’t have were written real estate deeds or the ability to defeat the US military.

It’s simply dishonest to suggest that it was OK to take the land due to lack of ownership rights. It’s also wrong to imply that it was OK to take the land since it was under-utilized. Imagine someone comes into your home and tells you that they bought your land on the dark web using Bitcoin. Then they explain that it’s all legal in the new digital world and that you have to move out now since you don’t have a hexadecimal key to participate in the secret auction online. When you protest, they force you to leave with high tech weapons. Finally, to justify their actions, they say that they can house more people and grow more food on your lot. You would correctly say that you had been robbed, and you would correctly say that the explanation doesn’t justify the crime.

Frankly, in the 21st century, to be repeating old lies that the Native Americans wanted homesteaders to take their land because they would better use it is offensive. The US military forced the Native Americans off the land at gunpoint, by slaughtering bison, and by encouraging white settlers to move in. The homesteaders used the land in the same way as the Natives, farming, ranching, hunting and fishing. In some ways they were more advanced, and in other ways, such as topsoil removal, they were more destructive. It is also devious to try to defend the racist policy of Native American removal by saying that it benefited blacks, women and immigrants. Would you teach your son that it’s OK to beat up and steal another child’s lunch as long as he shared a little of it with other kids who were hungry?

Fort Larned National Historic Site

/ bigdiff / 5 Comments

This large US military base was built to end “the Indian problem” permanently. How? I direct your attention to the ammunition and gunpowder in the room above. The problem that the Native Americans had was that their land was being systematically stolen, often in violation of US treaties. The “problem” the US government had was how to stop the Native Americans from defending their illegally-seized territory.

After the Civil War, the US military moved against the Native Americans. Near this fort in 1867, General Hancock’s troops massed near a large Cheyenne village, which evacuated quickly, and then, on the General’s suspicions and order, burned it to the ground, prompting a widespread escalation of conflict across Kansas that summer. Perhaps realizing his mistake, the General hired an interpreter, signed a treaty and paid several tribes to move away. The terms were unfair, but the fighting moved away from Kansas as the military fortified this base and increased troops here over the next year.

Make no mistake. The Native Americans were forced from their lands at gunpoint, while the US government repeatedly broke its own treaties.

On a completely coincidental point, today’s conservative political folks are extremely afraid of undocumented foreigners coming in with guns and taking over America. Think about that.

Bent’s Old Fort National Historic Site

/ bigdiff / 4 Comments

Yes, there’s also a new fort, and no, I didn’t go there. The fort is a beautiful reconstruction made for the US Bicentennial. You might notice the fire damage around the edges. Just a few days earlier, a fire (under investigation) burned the fields and trees surrounding the fort. Fortunately, the fire department and rangers saved the fort and the animals. Even though I could still smell smoke, the ranger/ volunteer firewoman gave a full tour in period costume.

The Bents were merchants who traded buffalo bison hides and other goods on the Santa Fe trail. The fort was more of a commercial trading post than an active military base, but the lines were blurred. Kit Carson spent some of his early years around here hunting shooting bison. The US government used forts along the trail to protect the mail and to replace the Natives with white settlers.

Racism drove cultural hegemony. Before the arrival of Europeans, the Native Americans built homes, ate bison, hunted, fished, and grew mixed crops of corn, beans & squash. The superior settlers introduced a completely new way of using the land by building homes, eating beef, hunting, fishing and growing wheat. Oh wait, that’s exactly the same.

Fort Bowie National Historic Site

/ bigdiff / 3 Comments

Three of the graves in the fort’s cemetery are of captured Native American children. The center one belongs to a three-year-old Apache girl, buried under a Christian name given to her by her captors. The one on the right is of an Apache child unnamed with no age, buried like the others in the manner of his or her captors. And the left grave belongs to the two-year-old son of Chief Geronimo, Little Robe, who likely died of a disease spread by his captors, and whose father’s name will be remembered as synonymous with bravery, long after everyone else here is long-forgotten.

Click to see my photos of all national park units in Arizona.

Tonto National Monument

/ bigdiff / 3 Comments

This cliff dwelling was protected by President Theodore Roosevelt, and the lake in the distance bears his name. My maternal grandfather used to read The Roosevelt Bears to me, and he loved the west, wildlife and birds in particular. So it was especially meaningful for me to wake up beside Apache Lake, spot a hooded oriole, and then drive up to the monument in the morning. Despite a wildfire and protective burns in 2019, the wildflowers were beautiful. Unlike Montezuma Castle, visitors can climb up to and stand in the main alcove to inspect the ruins.

Click to see my photos of all national park units in Arizona.

Wupatki National Monument

/ bigdiff / 1 Comment

The lower part of the Wupatki Pueblo including ball court.

I have mad respect for the ancient people who built these pueblos and traversed this land for centuries. Their descendants are still here, and often they remind the rest of us to protect the land and the wildlife that lives here. Climate change is already creating environmental refugees, more each year. Fossil fuel firm executives continue to make millions, despite the incredible hardships they foist upon our futures. And yet most of us still refuse to take action.

Click to see my photos of all national park units in Arizona.