The analysis of Black Hawk's autobiography

America has a great history of being a country that practices justice and respects the rights of everyone. It is termed the land of the free and has been a leader in ensuring a democratic world. However, does the term the land of the free mean anything to the natives who lost their land to the white inhabitants in the 19th century? Did the government rightfully purchase the properties following the signing of the 1804 treaty with the natives at St. Louis ceding the Sauk land and the 1816 agreement that confirmed the 1804 treaty’s provisions? Black Hawk uses his autobiography to suggest that whites used the ignorance of natives to read and write to trick them into signing the agreements, but education about forgiveness is more valuable than learning to read and write. It is evident from the autobiography that the chiefs who engaged in the first treaty thought that by signing the treaty, they would remain in the lands forever in spite of the sale. Black Hawk claimed that the provision in the document permitted the natives to stay until the government sold or disposed of the lands (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007). The second treaty that confirmed the first was still confusing to Black Hawk and other Sauk Chiefs.

According to the “Life of Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak or Black Hawk,” the natives’ chiefs did not know the customs and laws of the whites thus did not understand what they agreed during the signing of the treaties. He states,

What do we know of the manner of the laws and customs of the white people? They might buy our bodies for dissection, and we would touch the goose quill to confirm it, without knowing what we are doing. (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007).

The statement depicts that touching the quill was a sign of consent and agreeing to the treaties. The negotiations were oral, but the treaty provisions were documented in English making it difficult for the Indians to read and understand. The white settles knew that Indians did not know to read or write. Therefore the choice to use English was treacherous to the people. The whites had no goodwill for the Indians as the founders of the nation had called for when formulating the constitution, if the whites were fair, they would have explained the provisions in the treaty.

In the entire history on Black Hawk, it is evident that he believed that land could not be sold since it is against the customs of the Indians to sell the land that was granted by their ‘Great Fathers’ and land cannot be moved. The actions of Black Hawk in the struggle and engaging in the war to reclaim their homes is a depiction of the belief that the Indian Chiefs did not know what they were consenting to when touching the quill. The issue of misunderstanding and language barrier is shown in,

Here for the first time, I touched the goose quill to the treaty-not knowing, however, that, by that act, I consented to give away my village. Had that been explained to me, I should have opposed it, and never would have signed their treaty. (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007).

The whites intentionally failed to explain the provisions of the treaty because they knew that once the treaty was signed, the natives would not claim that they did not consent to the treaty. The lives of the natives as depicted in the autobiography did not give room for learning the whites’ education. Men and women were taught the way of life thus were great warriors, hunters and medicine men. The Indians also engaged in corn farming thus it is clear they did not understand the whites. The fight, death, and imprisonment of thousands when fighting for their land is evidence that they had not consented to sell the land. Black Hawk claims that when the settlers took their fertile land, they did not attack them or interfere with the whites. He states, “Bad, and cruel as our people were treated by the whites, not one of them was hurt or molested by any of my band.” (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007).

The Indians were peaceable, but even after reporting the cruelty they faced the whites always found a way to blame the Indians. He states, “How smooth must be the language of the whites when they can make the right look like wrong and wrong like right.” (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007). The whites used their superiority in the customs and laws they had created thus making it easier to manipulate the government whenever they harmed the natives. The use of English, French, and Spanish had dominated the land, and the Indians had fallen victim of their manipulations each time and exploited the trust of the Indians. The treaties’ provisions were not understood by the Indians thus subjecting them to consent to issues they would otherwise oppose if they understood the provisions.

Ignorance of the Indians and their beliefs was exploited, but education cannot be constricted to reading and writing. The behaviors of the Indians under the leadership of Black Hawk are ethical and a lesson that the whites could learn from as specified by the Great Chief and warrior. He stated that the essence that the Indians did not resist or avenge the cruelty subject to them by the whites, “Is a lesson worthy for the white man to learn; to use forbearance when injured.” (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007). The statement depicts that for all the evidence that proves that Indians were illiterate, their ethics and morals were superior to those of the whites. Ethics under the whites’ education system is under philosophy and with their ability to read and write, the whites would have acted morally to the unsuspecting natives. The ability to remain calm when people hurt and steal from you is the hardest to learn due to the many factors such as personality, anger, and control.

Black Hawk describes the whites’ as vengeful and always willing to go to war if they believe they are insulted. The inability to stay calm and forgive others was the reason for the many wars involving the whites. The Indians, on the other hand, had few wars and fought for justice. The hatred and anger felt by the Indians following the killings, theft, and removal from their ancestral land was unbearable, but the Indians were humble and peaceable before the use of force was initiated by the whites. The bravely shown during the war near the Mississippi River was a testament that the Indians, although outnumbered, were not afraid to fight for their land. The fight and bravely is a depiction that they were not afraid of the whites that they had learnt to coexists which was not possible for the whites. The issue of whites selling whisky to the natives was a way to weaken the natives (Baym, Franklin, Gura & Klinkowitz, 2007). Black Hawk understood those facts because he was wise thus depicting that wisdom was based on experience, contemporizing the situation and from an individual’s morality. Therefore, wisdom was not studied in American schools hence the heroic status granted to Black Hawk centuries after his death whereas few whites who tricked them into signing the treated are known to the current generation of Americans.

Conclusion

The autobiography suggested that whites used the ignorance of natives to read and write to trick them into signing the treaties but education about forgiveness is more valuable than learning to read and write. The Indians may have lost their ancestral land because they did not understand the whites’ laws and customs but the various laws formed to assimilate the Indians and the heroic status of Black Hawk depict that humility perseverance and forgiveness is a lesson that is superior to the whites’ education.

Reference

Baym, N., Franklin, W., Gura, P., & Klinkowitz, J. (2007).  The Norton anthology of American literature  (7th ed., pp. 308-312). New York: Norton.