Battle Of Little Bighorn Analysis

The dominant interpretation of the Battle of Little Bighorn prior to the 1950’s was looking at this monument as the perspective of the orthodox patriot. “When I first went to work at what was then Custer battlefield in 1947 at the age of seventeen. . . The Indians were cardboard cutouts, impersonal foils for celebrating the heroism of Custer and his troopers.” (Utley 72). The orthodox patriot honored General George Armstrong Custer, not because of racism, but because the orthodox patriot views American history on a positive note in comparison to the Native Americans who know about the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. “The War Department. . .was proud of the preservation of the battlefield and the establishment of the cemetery which

Robert Utley, author of the article “Whose Shrine Is It?” and former Chief Historian of the National Park Service, stated “ Only super-patriots oppose an Indian memorial, in the belief that it somehow dilutes the heroic image of Custer on the hilltop” (74). He stated this in 1992, in comparison with what the opinion of orthodox patriotism was before the 1950’s, orthodox patriotism has had quite a change. Although the term orthodox patriotism has changed, it has adopted a new argument- political correctness. A Special to The New York Times has an article named “Conflict Emerges Over Custer Park” published in 1991. The NYT article refers to the controversy about renaming the memorial and building a shrine commemorating the death of Native Americans in the Battle of Little Bighorn. “Senator Malcom Wallop, Republican of Wyoming, became an outspoken opponent of the name change, calling the proposal ‘a prime example of political correctness’ and an act of ‘revisionism’” (NYT 37) It seems that ideas such as westward expansion and imperialism have taken a negative toll after the 1960’s, but yet defenders of colonialist/imperialist history find some type of way to defend it. Political correctness is the orthodox patriotism of the post

Beveridge would have supported the Battle of Little Bighorn interpretation that was prior to the 1950’s. In his first session of the 56th congress congressional records “In Support of an American Empire,” Beveridge states “We must never forget that dealing with the Filipinos we deal with children. . . must be written in every line of Philippine legislation. . .” (Beveridge 2). At the time Beveridge was enacting in overseas expansion, living up to the term “white man’s burden.” Beveridge was trying to convince congress that taking care of an uncivilized people by making them assimilate to American ideology by instituting a democracy. “The Declaration of Independence does not forbid us to do our part in the regeneration of the world. . .” (Beveridge 2). Of course what he states finds more justification on imperialism, something Anglo Americans would agree with in relation to the Battle of Little Bighorn, which just reinforces why it is more likely that Beveridge would support the interpretation before the 1950’s. Although the article is referring to imperialism and not westward expansion, it is easy to imply that Beveridge would have been supportive of the interpretation of the Battle of Little Bighorn prior to the 1950’s. The reasoning behind such a claim is that much like how Beveridge believed the Filipinos were children and needed the help to live properly and assimilate into a civilized culture, Americans believed that Native