On this sunny November morning I’m thinking about that tough, old Lakota chief from Standing Rock because his life exemplifies the clash of cultures.
On a day like today, Tatanka Iyotanka (Sitting Bull) was sitting on a bench outside of his home on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation conversing with his two wives when a Christian minister rode up to the house.
He told the chief that it was un-Christian of him to have two wives. It went against the will of God. It was barbarian.
Sitting Bull listened patiently, probably with a small grin on his face because he had heard all of this before, and said to the minister, “Well, there they are. Now you tell them which one has to leave.”
Which of these Lakota women would you deprive of a loving home? It was an answer based on Lakota logic. But then Lakota logic had baffled the white man for a century. And well it should because it was logic based on centuries of cultural beliefs unknown to Europeans.
The problems between the two races began because by not understanding the Lakota culture, the white man then disrespected it. He tried to remake it into something he could understand. If he could not remake it, he attempted to diminish it or destroy it.
Lakota logic and European logic did not blend, like trying to mix water and oil.
A Lakota man took more than one wife for many reasons. Perhaps a brother had died leaving a widow with children. In the Lakota way, the surviving brother then became responsible for his brother’s wife and children. It was his duty to give them food and shelter. His brother’s children became his children and his brother’s wife became his wife. Unchristian? Uncivilized?
When the settlers moved west they saw it as their responsibility to disrupt the  Lakota civilization. Just as the Spaniards made it an edict to either convert the indigenous people of South and Central America or kill them if they did not convert, so too did the settlers try to convert a people by destroying their culture. Culturecide?
Of course, changing a culture is something that cannot be done over night. As so many conquerors have discovered in history, the best way to create a new culture in their own image is to start with the innocent children.
Institutionalization seemed to be the best way. But in order to do this the new United States government needed help. It turned to the Christian churches and organizations already intent upon saving the souls of the so-called heathens. In the late 1800s the government and the church convinced tribal leaders to donate land to the Catholic Church (and other religions) in order to construct missions that would be turned into boarding schools.
Institutionalization had begun. In collusion between church and state, the boarding schools sprang up all across Indian Country. They were precursors of the federal boarding schools like Carlisle and Haskell, intent upon acculturation. Stewart, Pine Ridge, Phoenix, Santa Fe and Albuquerque were just a few of the Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools that became familiar institutions.
Hundreds of religious institutions from Arizona to Washington state to the Dakotas had already begun the tedious and intense process of destroying the different Indian cultures and traditions. The same thing was happening in Canada. They called the schools “residential schools” up there. A continent-wide, methodical destruction of language, attire, religion and culture of indigenous tribes had begun. The same thing had already happened across Central and South America at the hand of the Spaniards.
This was done by the do-gooders and churches. The thinking was that if the Indian was made over in the image of the white man, this would bring an end to the Indian problem. The acculturated Indians would assume roles in society and the headache they presented would vanish. They would become Americans.
However, the process of acculturation did not provide for inclusion. Indians were not recognized as U.S. citizens. They were isolated on distant lands.
They were excluded from voting or participating in the governments of the newly formed states. The message was, “You can act like us, dress like us, speak English like us and worship our God, but you are not welcome to our table.”
Acculturation was not a complete failure. Many Indians converted to Christianity and became, in the eyes of the federal government, civilized citizens. Those who did not were shunned. They were looked down upon by the converted conformists. What is worse, this stigmatization forced the traditional Indians into various stages of poverty. They became the have-nots. The good BIA jobs went to the conformists.
While those who acculturated prospered somewhat, the traditionalists remained the poorest of the poor. And this condition exists today.
Modern terminology still points this out. When someone does not conform, they are said to be “off the reservation.” And this is so ironic, because those traditionalists that did not conform were usually, “on the reservation.”
I believe those who have been shunned for many years, the traditionalists, are winning over the hearts, mind and spirits of those who converted. The traditionalists have remained steadfast in their beliefs; they have retained their spirituality and language, and have set the example for those who thought that by abandoning their culture and traditions they would be better off. But many conformists still wonder if this is the best and only way.
When Sitting Bull told the minister to select the wife to leave his home, he spoke volumes about the coming assault upon the Lakota culture and traditions.
Sitting Bull could have said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”