An investigation into the influences of Marxist theory on Native American – U.S relations
Throughout this class we have learned of the impacts both capitalism and communism have had on the culture of the United States but we have rarely discussed their influences and impacts on the nations that existed in North America long before the birth of the United States and who are still fighting for survival today. Looking at the history of Native American Nations through the lens of Marxism not only reveals a lot about the destructive nature of capitalism and confirms a lot of Marx’s theories but also exposes many of Marxism’s flaws. For the sake of this essay I will focus mainly on the Western Native Nations and communities of the Great Plains as, unlike their eastern brothers, they were mainly dealing with a United States that was well established on the continent and was already beginning to embody its national slogan of freedom, free trade, and free markets. It is important to point out that native communities have and still do vary greatly in their practices, beliefs, and cultures which is important as, due to the scope of this essay, I will sometimes make generalizations or give specific examples that may not apply to all Native Communities. It is also important to note that, even though I will mainly talk about the influences the United States and its capitalist policies had on Native Communities, all the interactions between these communities and the United States resulted not only in changes to the Native understanding, culture, and existence, but also to the United States. The introduction of smallpox and other European diseases in the 15th and 16th century is also very important as it had caused a loss of up to 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas, disrupting many of the traditional societal structures and making Native Nations very vulnerable to outside pressures and influences. (Utley, Indian Frontier)(Iverson, We Are Still Here)
Changes in Material Conditions
Even before the United States borders crossed the Mississippi river, the Plains nations had undergone drastic transformation due to a change in their material conditions. The horse, which had been reintroduced to the Americas by Spanish Conquistadors in the 16th century (Utley, Indian Frontier), completely changed many native communities. As Marx predicted, a change in the material conditions of the native communities had a drastic impact on their societal structure and their perceptions of the world(Early Philosophic and Economic Manuscripts). The speed and mobility the horse provided enabled the development of a new societal structure for many of these communities that revolved around following and hunting the massive buffalo herds of the great plains. This shift then made these communities dependent on the horse and created a culture intrinsically linked to this nomadic, horse bound lifestyle(Utley, Indian Frontier). This change in material conditions resulting in a shift in societal structure and culture that perpetuates the change is very reminiscent of Marx’s theories both about the interactions between the material base and the superstructure, and his theory of causality based on shifts in material conditions.
The change the horse caused in the structure of many native societies fits very well into Marx’s original theory where the base solely effects the structure(Critique of Political Economy), but further investigation proves the view of later Marxists, that the superstructure can also affect the base. Let us look at the buffalo hunting culture that developed after the introduction of the horse. This shift to a nomadic lifestyle required a change in a lot of the goods these communities were producing. Their dwellings changed from ones that could be moved once every couple of months to a more mobile buffalo skin hut that could be easily packed and stored to follow the migratory buffalo herd. The food these communities produced also changed as they became more reliant on the buffalo and their migration. Due to their mobile society, these native communities were no longer situated in one location for a long enough period to grow nearly as much food as they had before, shifting their diet further towards game they could hunt on the plains(Utley, Indian Frontier). As we can see this shift in culture caused a change in the material conditions of these communities and shows a shortcoming of the one-way view of how the base effects structure in Marx’s original theory.
The Material conditions of these communities again changed drastically with the introduction of firearms. These weapons were initially introduced by the Spanish but only began to reach the Great Plains in large quantities through the United States trade with Native Nations to the east. The introduction of guns again caused a major shift in the Plains culture in many ways and forced a major change in their societal structure. Guns made it much easier to hunt buffalo and became a necessity in conflicts between Native Nations, as those without guns stood at a major disadvantage (Utley, Indian Frontier). Guns also serve as the first window into Alienation, and the products of alienated labor(Excerpt Notes), for these communities as they were completely separated from the manufacturing of these items and from those who produced them. The increased ease in buffalo hunting that resulted from the introduction of firearms provided a means for the first surplus goods to be produced by these communities as they could hunt many more buffalo then were needed for their subsistence. These surplus goods represented the first step in the opening of these communities to capitalism as it provided a basis for exchange between these native communities and the United States(Utley, Indian Frontier). This also caused a shift in Native cultures as those who were previously unable to hunt due to their lack of strength or skill with a bow on horseback could now much more easily use a gun. Again, we see the material conditions of the base effecting the structure as the cultural value placed upon skill with a bow and arrow declined and was replaced by the value placed on those who were good shots with a rifle. Almost all native communities on the Great Plains adopted the use of the firearm and this did bring many benefits as it enabled more time for the development of much of the art, religion and culture that native communities around the United States still fight to preserve today. Also, without Guns it is doubtful that any of the Plains Nations would have been able to resist the United States through open warfare for as long as they did(Utley, Indian Frontier).
Exploitation by Trade
In addition to the benefits brought by the firearm, as described above, their introduction also created the means for the initiation of substantial economic relations between the Plains Nations and the United states(Utley, Indian Frontier). As Marx describes in the communist manifesto, the commodities produced by capitalist nations are the weapons they use to force indigenous “uncivilized” nations to accept capitalism. Here we see guns, which native communities had no way of producing as they did not posses means to smelt metal or create gunpowder, being used as the means to open these communities up to trade with the United States and the economic system that entails. The very surplus goods created by the introduction of firearms, the buffalo hide, would be the initial aim of United States exploitation. Almost exactly as Marx describes it, the guns, or the capitalist commodities, are used to batter down the walls of the self-sustaining subsistence structures of the Plains Nations. Due to tribe’s dependence on guns for both food and defense, merchants from the United States were able to demand exorbitantly high prices for their exchange, getting much more value in the trade for buffalo pelts then they ever could from simply selling the guns. This further forced the economic structure of the United States onto these native communities as it introduced competition within tribes, between tribes themselves, and between tribes and hunters from the United States for the buffalo pelts. This initial trade, solely focused around the exchange of guns for pelts, slowly introduced other commodities such as cast-iron pots and metal tools which further fostered the dependency native communities were developing on United States markets. Still, up until this point, these exchanges, at least on the Native American side, were for items of great use value to the communities and did not yet come to embody the exchange of native goods for unneeded and destructive commodities.
The first truly destructive commodity introduced to native communities was alcohol. Similar to how the British used opium to create demand in China, merchants used alcohol to increase the demand for United States goods in native communities. When exchange was first initiated between United States merchants and the Native Nations of the Great Plains, the demand for guns and other metal goods was about equal with the demand for buffalo hides in the United States. This meant that there could be a steady stream of trade between these two parties. Due partially to the long lasting nature of metal goods and the increasing demand for buffalo hides both in the United States and abroad, this balance soon began to shift so that native communities found themselves in the advantageous position of not needing nearly as many guns from the United States as the US merchants needed pelts. To prevent the United States from losing its economic edge in its exchanges with Native Nations, merchants began giving alcohol away to native communities or selling it at an extremely low price in an attempt to create another commodity native communities would want. This policy was ruthlessly effective as alcoholism spiked within these communities. Even today, alcoholism still poses a major problem on Native American reservations and can be traced back to this trade policy. With this newfound alcohol market, the United States could continue to acquire the pelts it needed at incredibly low prices without reducing the power it exerted over the Great Plains Nations(Utley, Indian Frontier). Again, we see parallels with how Marx describes capitalist nations open up “uncivilized” ones(Manifesto). Through the creation and exploitation of new markets, the United States successfully preserved the dependency relationship it had fostered between it and the Nations of the Great Plains and would continue its path towards continental dominance.
Loss of the Land and the Means of Production
As the population in the east continued to grow, and the migration to the west coast spurred by the gold rush brought settlers into direct contact with the Nations of the Great Plains, the relationship these nations had established with the United states would again change. Nations like the Sioux, who found the settlers moving through their land and decimating the buffalo herds to sustain their long journeys as infringing on their territory, began defending their sovereignty through raids and open conflict with these settlers. Eventually, pressure by these settlers lead to Government intervention on the part of the United States resulting in a series of conflicts between the United States and the different Native Nations of the plains. Much to the surprise of the United States, the mobile lifestyle of nations like the Sioux made them incredibly adept at hit and run, ambush style warfare. Through these tactics in Red Clouds War and by disrupting the supply lines of the United States Army, the Sioux and others were successful in forcing the United States to the negotiation table(Utley, Indian Frontier). Despite attempts by the United States to prevent the sale of guns to the Sioux, competition and cheap prices lead to the continued exchange between merchants and the Sioux for pelts and firearms. The United States then did almost exactly what Marx has described. In order to subjugate these nations, the United States attempted to appropriate nearly every means of production these communities possessed, forcing them into almost complete dependence to the United States, similar to how the worker, who possesses no means of production, is dependent on the capitalist. To do this, the United States first issued an order to the army to kill as many buffalo as possible in order to deprive the Plains Nations of the main commodity they had to exchange with merchants. Once the Buffalo on the plains had been driven to near extinction, the native communities were left without any economic power and without their traditional means of subsistence. This left these communities in a very vulnerable position, perfect for exploitation by the United States. In exchange for food rations and governmental assistance, Native Nations agreed to give up land they had established claim to through their previous wars with the United States. Slowly the Native Nations were stripped of any valuable land they had and most often relegated to reservations on the least fertile land in their domain. This furthered the dependency these communities had on the United States Government as few were able to grow enough food to sustain themselves and were forced to rely almost solely on governmental aid(Utley, Indian Frontier). This process left most Native Communities without any power in the capitalist system as they had been stripped of any means of production they had previously controlled, leaving them very much like the industrial worker who had only their labor to sell. This shift also fostered the destruction of culture Marx has extensively described results from capitalism(Manifesto). The religion and cultural practices developed by the Nations of the Great Plains was directly linked to the annual migration of the buffalo and the land they relied upon, and now, stripped of all that, many communities found it nearly impossible to continue their traditional practices.
Assimilation Into the Working Class
The destruction of indigenous culture was further fostered by the United States through their use of state apparatuses like the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Federal Indian Schools. Upon realizing that they had successfully stripped Native Americans of nearly all means of production they possessed, the United States government then shifted their aim to assimilation of the Native American into the Capitalist societal structure(Adams, Education for Extinction). Paralleling Marx’s theory about the relationship between material conditions and perception(Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts), the BIA attempted many programs to change the lifestyles of Native Americans to resemble those of average citizens and foster assimilation. Native Americans were encouraged to move into fixed homes made of timber and concrete and leave behind their nomadic, buffalo skin huts. They were encouraged to learn English and often prevented from practicing their traditional religious rituals. They came under assault from countless branches of Christianity with a near constant barrage of missionaries. The children were targeted most aggressively, as Robert Utley describes in his book The Indian Frontier 1846-1890, BIA “Agents frequently resorted to suspension of rations to fill the classrooms” (232). Once in these classrooms, Native American children were forced to cut their hair and wear the popular clothing of the time. They were prevented from speaking their native language and were instead taught English. The purpose of these schools was to teach them a trade so they could leave the reservation and find work. These schools often found summer work for their students so they would not be able to return to the reservation and reconnect with their culture. Back on the reservation the BIA implemented further policies like internal police forces which had drastic effects on the traditional culture. As Utley describes “Police service involved enough attributes of the old life to be popular and to inculcate in the policeman a sense of duty and loyalty to the agent. In the hands of a forceful agent, the police proved effective.”(230) Utley also describes how pushes for more western “traditional” households and gender roles lead to the decline of the traditional governmental structure of these Nations: “the slow but steady dispersal of the people in family groups across the reservation weakened the chieftainship simply because a chief’s hold depended in part on the proximity of families in band groups. By the close of the 1880s the chieftainship still existed, but it had been badly weakened” (230). Again we see parallels in Marx’s descriptions of families function within capitalist societies. Although at this point Native American Families had not simply become the economically controlled bodies Marx describes, we can begin to see some of this influence.
These capitalist influences were further exacerbated by laws like the Dawes Act of 1887, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1943, and the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 which aimed at further transformation and assimilation. These laws, which again show the influence of repressive state apparatuses in pushing conformity to the superstructure, destroyed tribal ownership and created private property within the reservations. The later acts attempted to facilitate the further sale of this land and relocate Native Americans who had undergone schooling to urban centers where they could enter the workforce. All of these acts attempted to reduce the amount of aid the US had to provide to these communities and incentivize them to become laborers in the free market world of the United States economy leaving reservations some of the poorest places in the country(Adams, Education for Extinction)(Iverson, We Are Still Here). As Marx describes when he discusses the shift from feudalism to capitalism, the worker must be stripped of everything until the only means of survival he has is to sell his own labor(Manifesto). Here, the traditional Native Communities have been almost totally destroyed, any means of subsistence or production they had have been taken by the United States Government, and imposed state apparatuses have continuously attempted to force conformity to the capitalist hegemony.
Resistance
Despite the almost insurmountable odds stacked against them, native communities within the United States still to this day resist assimilation. Many Native Americans throughout the United States still speak their traditional languages and practice their ancient religions. Unlike Marx’s prediction of cultural destruction, many native communities still hold their distinct cultures and practices which have resisted the capitalist onslaught the United States has imposed upon them. Similar to how Marx describes capitalism bringing about its own destruction through the creation of the proletariat, the educated city dwelling Native Americans the repressive school system created helped push for an end to capitalist and United States influences over their communities. In the 70s and 80s, movements like the American Indian Movement (AIM) sprung up and helped push for recognition of the atrocities and theft the United States government imposed upon the Native Nations of North America. Through the use of media, which many modern Marxists described as a means to resist capitalism, Native Communities have gained popular support for their sovereignty and the claims to their land. Native communities have partnered with environmental groups, hunting enthusiasts, and many others to protect their lands and their rights, crossing racial and economic divides to push back against capitalism(Cobb, Say We Are Nations)(Iverson, We Are Still Here). But, despite all the apparent similarities to communism and the proposed benefits it could provide to these communities, Native Nations have continuously been resistant to accepting Marxist ideology. A large part of this is probably due to the extraordinarily negative connotation communism has had in the United States over the last decade, but part could also be due to inherent problems traditional Native belief systems have with Marxist ideology.
Traditional Native Beliefs and Marxism
The problems traditional native belief systems have with Marxist ideology not only explain why Native Communities were resistant to accepting Marxism but also provide insight into some possible flaws within Marxism itself. It is important to point out that throughout this class, we have looked at Marxism mainly through the lens of western philosophical thought. Marxism is inherently tied to the European school of philosophical thought and therefore comes into conflict with many Native American Belief systems which differ greatly from the western interpretations of the world. I think this is best explained by Donald Fixico and Leanne Simpson in their respective articles American Indian History and Writing from Home: Constructing an Indian Perspective, and Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. Both these authors describe how western academia has failed in many ways to understand indigenous communities, cultures, and knowledge systems. One of the major flaws they outline is the post enlightenment disregard for spirituality and religion within western thought. Marx is influenced by this as he believes religion is alienating man from his true self. Another problem with western thought Fixico and Simpson discuss is the separation between man and nature commonly present in western conceptions about the world. One example of where this occurs within Marx’s theory is in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts where he distinguishes man as different from the animals of the world by man’s ability to “produce universally” free from need or want. In these same manuscripts he talks about natures usefulness to man residing in its ability to be changed into products through the very thing that makes man different. This contradicts a lot of traditional native animistic belief systems, which often suggest man is just another appendage of the animating force that inhabits everything around us. These belief systems oppose Marx’s theory of the value in nature being its ability to be exploited as many native communities see human’s role as maintaining the natural balance within the ecosystem and preventing its destruction and exploitation. Marx argues that communism will redistribute the means of production to the people while maintaining the advancements made by capitalism, but many indigenous communities do not see the technological changes brought about by capitalism as advancements. The Nations of the Great Plains in particular have seen how these “advancements” led to the destruction of their land and the near extinction of the buffalo. They have seen the destruction of their culture, which Marx describes as a natural development in human history but which these nations have continuously fought against. These communities exist in a space that we do not, where they can see an opposing system to capitalist ideology other than communism and they have continuously strived for this old system. Countless records describe how native communities preferred their traditional subsistence practices to capitalist influence and Native Nations have continuously asked for their land to be restored to them and the United States government to allow them to return to their traditional way of life. Sadly, for the nomadic buffalo hunters of the great plains this is no longer a possibility due to the decimation of the buffalo population and the continuous loss of land, but this does not mean we should forget their struggle. The struggles between the United States and the Indigenous Nations of North America provide insight into the dark side of capitalism our government often tries to cover up. They also both confirm many of Marx’s theories on the development of capitalism and challenge many of the benefits and strategies communism suggests. It is only through looking at history, like Marx did, that we can try to figure out a better way to move forward in this capitalist world and make it better for all people. Traditional indigenous belief systems, cultures, and societal structures have often been ignored in this discussion, but they may provide a complement to Marxism and both expose and suggest solutions to many of its flaws.
Research and Sources:
The Sources used for this paper were mainly from our Marxist class and a Native American history class I took this semester. The readings include those outlined in the syllabus for our class and readings and documentaries for the Native American History class which are the books Robert M. Utley. The Indian Frontier, 1846-1890. University of New Mexico Press, 2003) Revised Edition., Iverson, Peter, and Wade Davies, We are Still Here: American Indians since 1890. Wiley, Blackwell, 2nd edition, 2015, Daniel M. Cobb. Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887. University of North Carolina Press, 2015, and David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: The American Indian Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. University of Kansas Press, 1995. The documentaries used for this paper are We Shall Remain: Wounded Knee, Broken treaty at battle mountain, and Real Injun. The articles used included Leanne R. Simpson’s Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge and Donald L. Fixico’s American Indian History and Writing from Home: Constructing an Indian Perspective.