As many in class have expressed, thinking and learning about place and memorialization has been one of my favorite topics that we have talked about in class. I have never really thought about the choices that are made with regards to remembering a place or event. Our readings and talks in class, particularly the articles, "Memorial Landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors", and "Memory and the everyday landscape of violence in post-genocide Cambodia", made me think about Native Americans and their history involving large scale massacres; in particular the Massacre at Wounded Knee, killing 150 people.
When I was about 13 travelling on a trip driving back from Colorado, my family and I took a detour through South Dakota to the Pine Ridge Reservation. We travelled through the Badlands National Monument to reach the Wounded Knee Memorial. I couldn't help but think of this memorial area when we were talking about the various ways in which massacres were remembered and/or forgotten across landscapes. Wounded Knee is a site where nearly 150 members from the Sioux Indian Tribe were killed. I was pretty young at the time, and even then I remembered thinking to myself, “is this really it?” It was so bare, isolated and just sad. Thinking about it now, I wonder, is this the best way to remember this event? Using Dwyer and Alderman’s article, I am going to apply metaphors to the Wounded Knee Memorial.
Text/ Arena:
Metaphorically, texts as monuments reveal who the author is, what the story is, and who is telling it. When viewing these memorials using the arena as a metaphor, conflict comes about, and there is a competition for whose story is going to be told. I decided to put text and arena together as one category because I find it difficult to talk about one without the other.
When reading the text that is around the area, it shares history, commemoration and honor for those who suffered. There are texts on signs, cemetery stones, inside of visitor's buildings, and many more. I was having trouble fining who wrote these actual texts- but I dont think that is too important. The stories that are shared through these texts are not being contested, but it makes me wonder if Native Americans who feel a connection to the place are satisfied with the memorial, and if there are more important stories to be told.
Natives Americans 'lost' at the game that was being played against the colonial whites. While there are Native Americans living on the Pine Ridge Reservation, I wonder if they are negatively reminded/ embarrassed on a daily basis that they 'lost' due to the attraction and memorialization in the area. It would be nice to talk to one of the people who either live or work in the area, and find out their feelings towards the memorial.
Performance:
When I visited the monument as a young girl, I remember feeling very out of place and almost uncomfortable. I don't remember very many people being there, if any, and quite frankly I was wondering why we went there in the first place. Of all of the vacations that I went on, this particular location still keeps vivid pictures in my head, as well as remembered feelings of empathy and confusion. We went into the small store which sold merchandise and contained more readings and pictures. There was a Native American man working there and my dad asked a few questions, bought a t-shirt and a dream catcher. When he bought those things, I remember thinking, he is just doing this because he feels bad for them, why would he buy a $20 tee-shirt? It was very nice that he did, regardless of his motives. I think that I remember some of these things so well because the whole time I was there I didn't feel comfortable; it was just a very sad and almost eerie place. This was my performance.
While I was doing some research online about the memorial I came across some reviews made by people who had visited. There were a few mixed feelings, as well as stories of disappointment. One woman writes about being asked for money by Native American men, and believing she was scammed. She continues saying that, “You should be ashamed, your ancestors would be appalled of your actions.... Stay away if you don't want to lose your hard earned money..It's all a scam! We were scared being there!” Quite frankly, I am not too surprised by this. I don’t mean to justify their actions, but it makes sense considering Native Americans demographically are very poor and are aware that visiters with money come through. There were plenty of reviews sharing the same feelings, as well as others that had a very wonderful experience- I found it interesting to read them.
Thinking of the memorial as a metaphor for performance means to think about the activity that goes on in that place. I came across an event called, The Wounded Knee Motorcycle Run. It is a way to, “bring all those who make the run with us closer together and help them to be more understanding and accepting of the cultural differences between Native and Non-Native Americans that live in this very culturally diverse country we all live in.” Positive performances like the Motorcycle Run occuring at Wounded Knee are a good way to commemorate those who died, regardless if there are people displeased with the memorials.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g54880-d144992-Reviews-Wounded_Knee_Massacre_Monument-Wounded_Knee_South_Dakota.html
Katie, I enjoyed reading your post and how you used the metaphors of text, arena, and performance to capture the memorial at Wounded Knee. I particularly thought that what you said about text and arena was interesting. You state, “The stories that are shared through these texts are not being contested, but it makes me wonder if Native Americans who feel a connection to the place are satisfied with the memorial, and if there are more important stories to be told.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough you point out that there is no contestation in the texts, I found contestation in the performances of people visiting the site. The review you mentioned in your blog and others on trip advisor gave insight to this. It was interesting that there was quite the range in reviewers’ opinions. Ranging from “every American needs to see this” to “Beggers” (sp) and “A huge disappointment”, it is clear that contestation still goes on today as people think about the importance of the memorial and how the events of Wounded Knee are being memorialized.
Wanting to learn more about this memorial as your post was the first time I had ever heard about it, I did some research on my own and found out that the descendants of those who died in the battle at Wounded Knee Creek were the individuals who built a church and erected a monument next to the gravesites of the victims of the Wounded Knee Massacre. I thought that it was interesting that even though the descendants were the ones who had chosen how this event should be memorialized (and rightfully so), reviewers still contested the way it had been memorialized and were quite opinionated about this. One reviewer asserts, “Don’t waste your time travelling to this site. The graveyard and memorial are derelict and frankly are a national disgrace. We heard that there is a dispute between the Indian Agency and the National Parks of the site, and the upshot is that the local Indians are in charge. It is a disaster. You will be very ad(sp) to see what a complete shambles the place is.” This made me think of how, just like the Manning article, individuals have certain expectations and assumptions of places/memorials that are based on Eurocentric views and standards and are often ignorant of the significance and impact a place may have despite the lack of Eurocentric standards.
I really found myself enjoying this article, and the connections you made to the readings. It's interesting to see and take memorial locations such as this, that have the appearance of being no more than a tourist trap (with reviews even claiming that's all it is) and really digging deeper into it to find that the place has far more meaning than a simple location to take peoples money.
ReplyDeleteI find myself wondering if perhaps the location and memorial of wounded knee is left in such bleak disrepair and emptiness, as you say, because Americans as a whole don't view the tragedy as happening to themselves, therefor there is no reason to put money into actually constructing a monument. Even though it happened on US soil, by US soldiers, I would guess most Americans (assuming they even know what it is) would view the massacre the same as if it had happened in another country to a completely different group of people.
-Devin
I thought this post was really interesting because I’ve been to the Wounded Knee Memorial before, but not really as a tourist. I went to South Dakota with a group (it was an opportunity that I heard about through a community group in Cleveland). I went down there in 2006 to help fix up the Pine Ridge reservation by repairing homes and replacing mattresses and other such things. The tribe we were working with were the Lakota people. Although I was there to help, the Lakota people were more interested in teaching us about the history of their people, rather than putting us to work. One day we went to the Wounded Knee Memorial. It is such a simple memorial—a mass burial gravesite on top of a large hill. I could see how some who visited the site were confused about why it is considered a tourist attraction. I think that I had a unique experience because we were accompanied by a few Lakota people who told stories about the massacre, stories that were passed down to them from generations before. After hearing their stories, it was kind of an emotional experience seeing the mass burial site because you understood what it means to the Lakota people.
ReplyDeleteThis memorial did not seem like much of a tourist attraction, it was more so an area that was preserved. Relating this back to the Ken Foote lecture, this area was a mix between sanctification and designation. It was an area that was left as is, not changed much (sanctification), but it is marked as an important area because of signs (designation). Katie, you mentioned in your post if the Native Americans in the surrounding area were satisfied with the memorial. From my experience I would say that they are happy with it, because the area is preserved as it was. I think they would find it disgraceful if the burial site was decorated heavily with statues and things to attract tourists. I think this area means something very important to them, their culture, and heritage, so the fact that the area remains preserved and simple is more than enough.
What a coincidence it is that you have posted about Wounded Knee! I just read an article from the New York Times that reveals much of the contestation over this memorial that is not so apparent through the text/arena/performance perspectives of memorials as a visitor because it’s a little more behind the scenes. As it turns out, this piece of land has been owned by a white man for a few decades who is selling it literally as we speak. As you already know, this area is among the most impoverished in the nation, and the Native Americans that still live there simply do not have the money to buy back this land, at least not at his asking price. This is where some controversy comes in. The owner of the land is asking $3.9 million for the 40-acre plot, which is given this high price for its “sentimental and historical value.” But, to whom does this area have more sentimental and historical value than the remaining members of the tribes that were massacred there? This is among the arguments these tribes are making. It becomes clear through the article and the asking price that much of the contestation largely falls into a question of whether or not people should profit from sentimental and historical value—should this privileged man be profiting from the memories and history of tribal members that cannot afford to buy the land back? They can hardly even survive due to the economic situation/policies that was/were coincidentally imposed on them, should what belongs to them/their ancestry be profited from by others (and white men at that)? The article also reveals more contestation over this memorial—If they are able to somehow obtain the land, many members of the tribes are asking if the memorial should be used for them to make a profit in order to pay back the price of the land/work themselves out of the $60 million of debt they’re already in. This is a very big deal to them that we often overlook when looking at memorials—profiting off of memories. Additionally, contestation over this space is illuminated when you go to the nearby Little Big Horn memorial, which is the site of many fallen US soldiers and filled with massive, eloquent, Eurocentric memorials. I’ve heard people talk about Wounded Knee as if it is the most moving memorial in the world, and I’ve heard people talk about it as if there is nothing to see/it’s disappointing. What I have come to realize through this amazing post is that those things are one in the same. Massacres leave nothing to see except for ruins, and that is not anything to be proud of, but it is certainly something we must realize, reflect on, and be moved by, for many of our privileges result from massacres that took place many years ago and this is to the continual detriment of the lineage of the people many our ancestors massacred. Mentioned article-- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/us/wounded-knee-site-for-sale-stirring-controversy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
ReplyDeleteWow, that was a interesting article. It's interesting to hear some of the arguments and thoughts that various people have about that land. Asking $3.9 million is a lot of money that the tribe definitely doesn't have. I wonder what would be a good asking price on land that I see to be priceless.
DeleteSome of the people criticizing how the Indians use the land is also a pretty interesting debate. I can understand the two views that the article touches on. Native Americans in the area live in extreme poverty and need some source of income. But is it fair to profit off of the losses of their ancestors? I don't really know. Like one Indian mentioned, he doesn't charge an enterance fee or anything, they want it to be more of an educational experience for those who visit. It's a shame because the educational attraction isn't bringing in nearly enough money to buy back the land that is 'already theirs'.
The topic of Wounded Knee not only represents a memorial for the events of Wounded Knee, it can also represent those living on Pine Ridge Reservation. Not exactly a urban structure, but a place and community designed for a people of shared culture and connectivity. A sovereign nation within a nation.
ReplyDeleteI see it as a living memorial. That place may carry a errie feeling because it is a place that is an embodiment of injustice. We are talking about a paleoculture who was repressed and exploited begining with the great American Manifest Destiny and the fur trade.
Who feels a connection and to what degree they feel is a good question. I view this place as a living place, and I questioned and thought critical about a living community with strong cultural connection that stays strongly in place, as it is faced with geographical limitations from jobs, economic opportuntines and access to basic human needs. This community chooses their heritage and connection over justice and equalities.
In 1973 there occured a 70+day public protest and stand off with demands for the US Government for equality for their sovereignity. The murder rate between 1973-76 was the highest in our entire country. (mostly those of Political power or influence)
The performance of this community intergrades mediums such as tourism, and special events to promote and gain understanding. Their performance of loyality to their sovereign reservation and connection to their community and lands, speak a text and virtue of true community like no other. Very thoughtful blog Katie, thank you
I thought that this was an interesting article relating to the memorial of the Sioux tribe from the Battle at Wounded Knee. It was also interesting that lots of people objected to the memorial that was erected in honor and remember these Native Americans. I believe that though some objected to the building of this memorial, it appropriately remembers the events that took place in America's history.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, I wonder what ways they could have produced a "better" memorial for this event. Adding on to what Jack had stated, I feel that it is appropriate for the descendants of this tribe to benefit from this battle because there should be some kind of reparations made by the United States to help the under-privileged affected. Relating this back to spatial justice, the descendants of this tragedy from history have been prevented from being able "to be and become, to thrive and express, and to access and connect," because of the reverberations made by the massacre of over 150 people. The United States could do a lot for the underprivileged Native Americans if they owned the land the battle was fought on and they were provided with an adequate memorial to promote tourism. The profits would go a long way in supporting the tribe.
But how long should the government be responsible for helping the underprivileged descendants of the Sioux tribe? I think that they are held responsible for as long as the oppressed spatial justice rights are present, and they have a fair chance in the pursuit of success. The issue surrounding the Wounded Knee Memorial helps support my belief that the government should intervene in this, and similar cases.