Zitkala-Sa uses her personal narrative to subvert Pratt’s binary of Indian savagery and civilized whiteness. Pratt’s mission “kill the Indian, and Save the Man” enforced the ways in which Zitkala-Sa and other Native American children were stripped of their identities, in both subtle and aggressive ways.
n the chapter “The cutting of my long hair” in The School Days of an Indian Girl, she talks about the subtle but violent assimilation she was subjected to by the administrators at the Carlisle School. Zitkala-Sa says that her spirit “tore itself in struggling for its lost freedom” as she was shoved into an unknown space with unknown rules. When she and the other students were called for breakfast, three bells were tapped: the first bell meant that the students had to draw out their chairs, the second bell meant that students could sit, and the third bell signified that students could start eating. But Zitkala-Sa describes being confused by all the bells and being judged and violated by a woman who stared at her because she didn’t know the routine. Finally, she starts crying because “I was afraid to venture any more” guesswork about the routine. This incident demonstrates the “savagery” of the Native American as they were perceived by the white man as uncivilized and disobedient. Militarizing the children not only crushed their innocent and free spirits full of play and wonderment, but stripped their free-will and changed them (the Native Americans) into civil and obedient zombies. Zitkala-Sa was perceived as a disobedient child who needed to learn etiquette and manners, and when she failed to follow the established routine, she was ostracized by her masters.
I consider this incident as one of the first steps to crushing the innocent and free spirit of the child that was Zitkala-Sa because in the chapter “The Ground Squirrel”, she talks about how she would play with her dolls, just like any other child, while her mother ran errands. Zitkala-Sa describes how she would play with her dolls. “I braided their soft fine silk for hair, and gave them blankets as various as the scraps I found in my mother’s workbag.” She also talks about the delightful wonderment and curiosity she had when a squirrel stole some of the corn she was tasked to watch by her mother. Zitkala-Sa writes, “I wanted very much to catch him, and rub his pretty fur back” and whenever the squirrel came for some corn, Zitkala-Sa would “whoop in recognition” as any child would at the sight of a cute, furry animal. Pratt wrote and said “Kill the Indian, and save the Man” but what about these stories says that Native Americans were inhuman or inhumane?
The Carlisle school further stripped Native Americans of their identity by forcing the children to cut their hair. The length of hair was a big part of Native American culture.
“Our mothers had taught us that only unskilled warriors who were captured had their hair shingled by the enemy. Among our people, short hair was worn by mourners, and shingled hair by cowards!” Zitkala-Sa writes that she and her friend “discussed our fate
and Judéwin said, “We have to submit, because they are strong.”
“No, I will not submit! I will struggle first,” Zitkala-Sa said, and she ran away and hid under a bed. She elaborates, how she was “dragged” by her superiors as she kicked and screamed in an attempt to rebel and fight against her oppressors who wanted to rip her culture and heritage away from her.
Zitkala-Sa subverts Pratt’s mission as she used the language of her oppressors to write about the oppression she faced. Whereas, Pratt uses the term “Indian” and describes them as “savage”, Zitkala-Sa gives names, gives backstories, and describes the times when she and other Native Americans were forced to accept defeat and surrender to their oppressors. When she writes “discussed our fate” it reinforces how there was a higher power who forced them to “submit” because they were stronger. The militarization of Native Peoples to force obedience and submissiveness, and the loss of Native languages is subverted by Zitkala-Sa as she writes about the prejudice and injustice that was done to her and countless other people. Through obedience by the adoption of the dominant culture, Zitkala-Sa disobeys that culture as she takes reclaims her identity and unveils the tyranny she was subjected to.
RESISTING THE SILENCE 
Hey Nidhi! I thought this line from Pratt might be interesting in the context of what you are speaking of (separating Native children from their cultures and giving them new cultures):
“A public school system especially for the Indians is a tribal system; and this very fact says to them that we believe them to be incompetent, that they must not attempt to cope with us. Such schools build up tribal pride, tribal purposes, and tribal demands upon the government. They formulate the notion that the government owes them a living and vast sums of money; and by improving their education on these lines, but giving no other experience and leading to no aspirations beyond the tribe, leaves them in their chronic condition of helplessness, so far as reaching the ability to compete with the white race is concerned. It is like attempting to make a man well by always telling him he is sick. We have only to look at the tribes who have been subject to this influence to establish this fact, and it makes no difference where they are located. All the tribes in the State of New York have been trained in tribal schools; and they are still tribes and Indians, with no desire among the masses to be anything else but separate tribes.”
I chose this particular quote for this because I thought the idea of Pratt’s concern about Native people never having any aspirations beyond their tribe – as well as being absolutely helpless – is very interesting compared to Zitkala-Sa’s ideas of independence and trying to forge her own path. Is being independent and not aspiring to the “greatness” and “advancements” that Pratt believes white civilizations have such a bad thing? How does this relate to how we view “uncivilized” or “primitive” cultures (even in the modern day)? What standards are we setting?
LikeLike
I really like your idea here about the “militarization” of native people. Your use of words like “zombie” and “obedient” help the reader to understand this concept, but I think this could also be strengthened through the use of Pratt’s text. I think it may be beneficial if you pulled from Pratt’s passage about the “Land in Severalty” as I feel that he talks about taking Native tribes who are unique and have their own cultures and streamlining them into one identity. Here is a quote for your consideration:
” Land in severalty, as administered, is in the way of the individualizing and civilization of the Indians, and is a means of holding the tribes together. Land in severalty is given to individuals adjoining each other on their present reservations. And experience shows that in some cases, after the allotments have been made, the Indians have entered into a compact among themselves to continue to hold their lands in common as a reservation. The inducement of the bill is in this direction. The Indians are not only invited to remain separate tribes and communities, but are practically compelled to remain so. The Indian must either cling to his tribe and its locality, or take great chances of losing his rights and property.
The day on which the Land in Severalty Bill was signed was announced to be the emancipation day for the Indians. The fallacy of that idea is so entirely demonstrated that the emancipation assumption is now withdrawn.
We shall have to go elsewhere, and seek for other means besides land in severalty to release these people from their tribal relations and to bring them individually into the capacity and freedom of citizens” (Pratt ).
LikeLike
I found the examples in your writing to be very interesting. You used great examples from Zitkala-sa’s text. I will be giving you a suggestion from Pratt’s text to expand on your ideas. Pratt states “A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” -Pratt
I believe that this connects to what you wrote about Zitkala-sa’s text because here Pratt speaks about the Indian not being human, “Kill the Indian in him and save the man” whereas in Zitkala-sa’s text the whites treated the Indians inhumanly. In Zitkala-sa’s text she is speaking about her experience about being treated inhumanly ,whereas in Pratt’s text the experience wasn’t as personal but Indian where still treated inhumanly. I believe that Zitkala-sa was trying to bring light to the inhuman treatment and Pratt was trying to cover it up by calling the whites the “oppressors” civilized.
LikeLike