War by Alternate Means: Native American Boarding Schools in the 19th Century

Sydney Ianuale

  In the late 19th century, the United States saw the emergence of a multitude of government funded and operated boarding schools, as well as religiously operated boarding schools. Over 500 schools across 38 states operated between 1879 until approximately the mid 1960’s, each with a uniquely distinct student body. These residential schools were established, and systemically formulated in order to hold and ‘educate’ Native American children. A single common philosophy both connected and fueled each and every one of these boarding schools; “Kill the Indian, save the man”.^[1] In 1879, Lieutenant Richard Henry Pratt was authorized by the United States government to establish the first school dedicated to ‘saving’ Native Americans as well as proving as a race, they can be educated. Pratt upheld the belief that through the process of assimilation into Anglo-American culture, Native Americans could successfully live and prosper among white standards of civilization and life. The Carlisle Indian Industrial School, founded in Carlisle Pennsylvania, was the first official government funded Indian boarding school of the time. This school was the first of many that would center the idea of assimilation through education as a saving grace for Native Americans and the Native American race. Children of these communities would be legally kidnapped, imprisoned and forced to attend these schools in an effort to put a stop to Indigenous lifestyles and its passage down to future generations, and destroy these customs and cultures to be replaced with a ‘civilized’ culture. Experiences across these institutions vary with few being considered positive and a majority ranging between poor and abysmal. While each school may have had its differences, their goals or philosophy remained constant, connecting them all through a shared objective; kill the Indian.  

Native American history after the introduction of white colonization becomes a tragic and violent segment of American and United States history. Regarded as simply a small facet of the larger, paler picture of American ideology, this history is constantly neglected, keeping it from deeper analysis and understanding. Primary sources such as records from the federal government or official school reports provide insight into a perspective that aims to justify these boarding schools, lasting damage and cultural genocide. Their goals of assimilation and cultural erasure (through violent means if deemed necessary by the offenders of said violence) is supported by an argument that paints a picture of righteousness, compassion and service. This concept is best recognized as a ‘white savior complex’ highlighting the incessant need to intervene by white communities in races and nations that did not ask nor need it. This argument, or perhaps better yet, this belief was that Native American populations were “savage”, particularly in comparison to Anglo-European standards. The culture, traditions, customs and people were positioned as less than that of white society and members of it, formally fixing whiteness at the top of a socio-racial hierarchy. As a result of this mentality, ‘saving’ these people and communities became understood as the duty of those who are properly ‘civilized’, and it is the duty of the educated, Christian and white to combat and correct Indigenous lifestyles. The belief was if Native ‘savages’ are to survive, they must do so through emanating civilization to the white standard, otherwise their barbaric ways of life would lead to their demise. Through the guise of salvation, white colonists believed the humane alternative to slaughtering Natives for their land and own peace of mind was to force Native children into schools that stripped them of their customs, cultures, identity, and in some cases, their lives. Is it possible to wage war through education? The United States in the 18th century saw the powerful emergence of these hostile Native American boarding schools, used as mechanisms of assimilation. Through these residential schools, Native American children resisted, conformed and lost their lives as a result of what could be considered alternative war. Alternative war, through education.

As with any historical line of study, approaches to research into the process, history and impacts of Native American boarding schools have varied. These variations are a result of influential social or political factors, becoming products that are farther in tune to their time period than historians may realize while they compile, and create. In addition to being influenced as well as an inevitable product of the time in which they were researched and written, historical works on a topic can also simulate a ‘road-map’ for modern historians to consider as an outline of comprehension on any given topic throughout history. Over the course of American history research and study, three major schools of thought have formed around the discourse of Native American boarding schools, each providing deeper insight into the broader understanding of this historical account.

The first school of thought is known as the ‘Traditional View’, as the title suggests, this school of thought is traditional in the sense of who is telling this story, how they are telling it and finally, why. This “view” is dominated by official government excerpts, and white influential individuals who often frame these schools as a natural process, essential for the benefit of America, (white) Americans and most importantly, the benefit of Native Americans. The traditionalist view is marked by the years of scholarly and historical work done prior to the 1960’s, before the federal government ended its participation in funding these residential academies in 1969. This historical view decidedly does not include first-hand testimonies of Indigenous children who experienced these institutions, or families who lost their younger members to these schools. As one may predict, these primary sources center the voices and testimonies of those who cannot critically analyze their own actions and ideologies as racist or misguided. More recent works in comparison to sources from the time, such as Church, State, and the American Indians: Indian Missions in the New Nations, published in 1966, include insight into the intersection between religion, and the ‘Indian mission’.^[2] In this work, as well as similar works, authors such as Pierce Beaver tend to lack a critical understanding of the topic focusing mainly on the story of their formation from the perspective of those who formed them, even referring to the schools as a place where “Indians” could advance (or become accustomed to) their American conceptualizations of accepted morality.^[3] This school of thought dominates a majority of American history related to this topic, with a shift in perspective arising as a result of an explosive Civil Rights era.

Less than five years after the publication of Beaver’s work, a new approach to Native American and Native American boarding school history began to take precedence. The second school of thought related to this historical line of inquiry is marked by the period of time between the 1970’s to the mid 1990’s. Known as the ‘Critical Revisionist View’, this school of thought shifts away from a narrative of justification and towards one that begins to emphasize the brutality and barbaric nature of Native American treatment throughout history. Rising in conjunction with Civil Rights movements and organizations, specifically the ‘Red Power’ movement, a civil rights movement advocating for the equal rights and protections of Native Americans in the United States and under the United States government. This view centers indigenous survivor testimonies, the role of systemic injustices and violence and prejudices rooted in white-supremacy. However, this school of thought still did not prioritize Indigenous authors, or historians to share their own history and experiences. The rise of this highly critical historical analysis particularly in association with the rise of Native American civil rights movements is a highly powerful influence to this line of historical study, and can be understood as a defining shifting factor between schools of thought and historical approaches to this historical narrative.

The third and final school of thought related to this history is known as the ‘Decolonizing Perspective’. This view and approach to Native American history and history of their schooling is marked by the late 1990’s, and is considered the current approach to this line of historical inquiry. This approach aims to center Native American scholars, testimonies and historians as the storytellers of their own history and experiences of their communities and people. This approach shifts beyond a view that creates a false image of Native American people as passive victims who simply accepted horrific treatment, with no agency or attempts of resistance against these oppressive and hostile practices. While these notions of history are not excluded in this modern approach, more focus is lent to examples of Indigenous children who survived, resisted and fought back against forced assimilation, in an attempt to uphold and retain their identities and culture. This school of thought is part of a historical movement committed to help aid in the healing of historically marginalized and oppressed communities by empowering members who  share identities with those who faced gross oppression. This perspective is helping Native populations to reclaim and properly share their stories, even for a portion of history that was directly dedicated to destroying those same identities.

If the United States waged war through a Trojan Horse of education, one might find it important to reasonably define war in order to compare the concepts. War is defined by the use of violence and force through a nation’s military in pursuit of a political goal.^[4] This definition is slightly contradictory to what one might imagine would be the technical meaning or definition of what characterizes a war. One might assume war is characterized by a battlefield, strategy, weaponry and bloodshed, all of which carry a portion of truth to them however, all of which additionally paint the picture of literal war or more accurately, battle. In addition to force, for a conflict to be considered war, it typically includes a sense of organized force or strategy as opposed to violence alone. Furthermore, war typically carries with it destruction, death and widespread violence against an understood enemy. When researching this history, these characteristics can be reasonably applied to the story of Indigenous residential schools, leading one to a chilling conclusion of academic hostility against a community, through the youngest members of said community.

One might find themselves questioning why an Indigenous guardian would be willing to send their child, in a majority of cases, off their reservation and far away from home to be schooled by white people. The answer is fairly simple and most likely predictable if one has prior historical knowledge of American or Native American history. It was not a choice. Prior to complete federal involvement through policy and funding, all Native boarding schools were operated privately, most by Catholic institutions^[5] with the distant support of state and federal governments. Towards the end of the 19th century marks the beginning of the federal government and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) efforts to become more centrally involved in this process of ‘educating’ Native Americans through existing Indian policy. This existing Indian policy originally belonged to the Secretary of War and the same department, due to a contested past and relationship prior even to this time.^[6] Eventually, this Bureau was converted to the Department of the Interior (DOI) which took and continues to take responsibility for issues related to Native Nations and their reservations, including issues of legality, sovereignty and United States government outreach. Through the BIA and efforts of the federal government, policies regarding Native American education began to take root. Treaties between Indigenous nations such as the Sioux agreed to these educational practices, considering them a service of the United States government to Native communities and their children as well as their futures. Motivated by a desire for more territory, the idea was an ‘educated Indian’ required less land than a ‘wild Indian,’ this idea contrasted the belief that Native Americans were incapable of civilization, eventually pushing for more involvement and support from both the government and public.^[7] Policies enacted by the federal government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs required Indian children of the appropriate age to be taken from their homes and families to attend these schools via “proper means”.^[8] These policies were not originally considered priority by many states and institutions, however in 1887 a series of legislations passed through the BIA, including the Dawes Act (1887), made eluding federal school requirements for children and families more difficult. Additionally, the Dawes Act officially and legally allowed for said ‘proper means’ of removal and relocation to these residential campuses in question, to be that of force. Federal and state officials now had given themselves legal standing over sovereign communities to essentially kidnap Indigenous children from their families and reservations and force them to attend a school that would strip them of their cultural identity against their will.

The United States government made no mistake when targeting the youngest members of Native American tribes through their boarding schools.^[9] This approach was extremely plotted and strategized in order to achieve two specific socio-political objectives towards the advancement of a white-centric American society. The ulterior motives of the United States behind helping Indigenous populations are both straightforward and ambiguous. The first that one might consider ‘straightforward’ is the deep-rooted desire to expand westward and expand the territory of the United States, a desire that established Native Americans as obstacles rather than people, who had been occupying the land first. The second, possibly more ambiguous motive is rooted in racial and racist ideologies tactically carried out and enacted by the federal government through these institutions in order to position white people, the culture, religion and customs sternly at the top of a social and political hierarchy. Due to the fact that education became the popular alternative to strategized murder because of economic concerns held by the federal government, if Native Americans and white colonizers were expected to be neighbors, an ideal of superiority and inferiority would need to be instilled through acculturation. Prior to the Dawes Act, otherwise known as the General Allotment Act, the accepted form of schooling for Native children was the typical day school. Children would go to school in the morning, and return home to their families in the evening, much like schooling as one may understand it today. However, concerns began to arise from officials and citizens alike, claiming that children could not fully avoid a “savage” upbringing if they simply return home to continue to be raised by their ‘uncivilized’ families and communities. In order to combat these concerns, the shift from day schools to residential schools was officially made, under this new strategy Native children would be taken from their homes and reservations at a young age, and allowed to return only after they reached the age of a young adult and completed their education. For an overwhelming majority of schools, this would mean students would not be allowed much, if any, contact with home, family or guardians nor would they be allowed visits. Essentially, this tactic was to ensure Native children would be completely isolated from their community and heritage. In this way, these children could be enclosed in a bubble of whiteness with little to no prospects of maintaining or learning their own cultural identity and effectively being fully indoctrinated into a white-centric society and culture. This shift was accompanied by the forceful nature in which the federal government employed its military to kidnap children and forcefully remove and relocate them to these residential institutions. Acculturation was no longer optional nor enforced leniently. This approach and these legislative acts also coincided with a new desire of the United States to begin taking individual records and consensuses of Native American people and communities on reservations.^[10] With this angle, it would be difficult for Native children to avoid being taken or accounted for when it came time for them to be enrolled in school. Additionally, the United States government would have complete access to files and records containing nearly every one of their ‘enemies’ individually. It is clear in this way that these schools were not established in pursuit of “moral, intellectual, and social improvement of the Indians,”^[11] as it was framed by official federal reports. This approach, or strategy, can better be understood as a piece of a larger plan that aimed to destroy Native populations through the education of their youngest members of their societies.

The transfer from day to residential schooling signifies the lengths of control the United States government would take in regards to Native American assimilation education. Through this use of military force and the passage of the Allotment Act, the federal government aimed and successfully accomplished an objective of disbanding and fracturing unity among tribes in order to replace tribal lands with more allotted land and space to the government for the use of its citizens.^[12] By kidnapping and isolating the youngest members of a tribe, oppressors instilled a sense of fear in Native communities, fear of their children’s wellbeing, as well as extended violence against themselves and their communities back home. This political motive of land expansion is quite clear through the process of isolation, acculturation and resulting negotiations and land seizure. Dismantling the community from within through a process of separation between the younger and older generations in the community was not the only tactic exercised by United States and institutional officials. Through their white education and process of assimilation, ideologies of community reservations were replaced with the idea of individual land ownership, and farming as a means of life and prosperity. With more and more Native Americans choosing to own their own smaller plots of land to build and live on with their families in contrast to returning to their reservations and communities, which was highly discouraged by their new society as well as school officials following their graduation from these schools and departure into society as Americans.^[13] With fewer Indigenous children returning home, advocacy and ownership over land became increasingly difficult and negotiations between Native nations and the federal government led to further expansion and apprehension of Native territory.^[14] Through force, fear and a tactic of assimilation, the federal government and residential institutions effectively established a system that would inevitably create a vacuum of land for their enjoyment and usage. It is clear that a direct result and motive of schooling hinged on what could be gained by the United States and the society that was being established through what was being instilled in Native children, as well as proceeding negotiations and land gained for the country.

As one can observe in American history, studies of oppression and marginalization from one major group against another, are typically that of a racial basis. American history is plagued by systems and institutions put into place to uphold a racial and social hierarchy, fixing white people and whiteness at the top. Since the conceptualization of race and the ‘othering’ mentality^[15] that came as a result of its invention – which was used as a justification for oppression – race has been a harbinger of violence and conflict throughout the history of the United States. Since European colonizers arrived in America, race has acted as a powerful driving force for much of the darkest parts of the country’s history, including that of the actions taken aggressively towards Native Americans. These actions were not taken simply against Indigenous people, but as a community with their own customs, deeply established and rooted on the lands desired for white colonizers and their own communities.

Race alone as an invention or discernible identifying factor does not necessarily bear conflict. Racism and proposed racial hierarchy, while a result of the invention of race, it is this decided intolerance that truly bears conflict and inevitable violence. Racism is the true centraldriving principle behind these boarding schools, and for people such as Lieutenant Richard Henry Pratt, it was this ideology of difference, status and inferiority that supported the belief that whiteness is superior to all others. It was important to white Americans that this hierarchy be established and not just understood, but agreed upon by Natives through an education that is both fueled by and teaches racism.^[16] This racist ‘fuel’ helps to feed the idea that Native communities are placed significantly beneath white people and white culture and therefore must be saved, whether these nations are open to their ‘help’ or not.^[17] Founded on the idea that Native children and people must be saved by erasing their current customs and cultures in order to make room for the decidedly superior white culture, these schools needed to integrate concepts of racial hierarchy in order to justify the steps and actions taken in pursuit and inside the walls of these residential schools. Furthermore, justification was not only a necessity for these schools to operate and function externally, but internally among the student body as well. If this was something that Indigenous nations and people were opposed to, or resisted against, the need to ‘help’ them was so great, it would turn to violence, coercion and force.

For as long as humans have worshiped gods and practiced religion, there have been conflicts, violence and war fueled by faith. Religion has long been a harbinger of violence, battle and adversity – and the experiences and history of Indigenous people in Native American boarding schools are no exception. The religious and cultural practices of Indigenous nations and people were yet another facet of society that was considered inferior to the white-centric society that was being forced into place for all inhabitants of the United States. Due to the earliest boarding schools being privately owned and operated by Protestant and Catholic institutions through the support of little federal funding, one might recognize the weight religion held on the process of assimilation. Religion guided virtuous civilized Anglo-American culture, similarly, religion guided the ‘savage’ culture of Native Americans, therefore religious assimilation was one of top priority since the original establishment of these residential schools.^[18] To force entire nations – each with their own religious customs and traditions – to conform to a single, Christian form of religion, is an attack in itself. It is a blatant attempt to try and conquer an entire group of people from the inside out starting with their faith, which guided much of their lifestyle, especially at the time. This point becomes increasingly clear when one begins to consider the strategy behind educating children, and not physically battling adults for socio-religious dominance. 

Today, public schools, public education systems and even private education systems all vary in a multitude of ways. Schools within the same state and district can find themselves with less in common – in terms of process, administration, structure to name a few – than they would have originally thought. This same concept applies to that of these residential schools. The main differences between the ‘types’ of these schools lies with religion. Some schools were operated by Catholic institutions and managed by Catholic immigrant nuns, others centralized Protestant religious beliefs, similarly being operated by nuns, and finally very few academic institutions that were federally operated, minimized or disposed of the inclusion of religious assimilation practices. In author, educator and historian James T. Carroll’s work,^[19] he researches the unique perspective of Catholic boarding schools and the nuns who managed them in the assimilation efforts of Indigenous children. The schools he focused on were primarily situated in both North and South Dakota, with the majority of their students being that of Sioux heritage. These institutions uncommonly created an atmosphere of compromise, and the women who ran them permitted much of the student body’s culture and customs to be maintained, even within the borders of campus in what is considered a sincere attempt to blend Catholicism and Sioux culture.^[20] What was allowed was that which was deemed ‘acceptable’ or, in other words, not “too savage” to the average white American. What one might find most questionable is that the nuns managing these schools were hired by the federal government to “Americanize” Native children, when they themselves were new to American culture and society as immigrants. Hailing from countries such as Germany, France and Switzerland and finding themselves in these schools upon arrival, one might ponder what qualifications an immigrant who is new to America might have for teaching American values and customs? Had the main goal of these schools been to ‘Americanize’ or civilize Indigenous children, it seems the proper way to achieve this would be through American educators. However, the federal government’s consistent use of immigrant Catholic nuns symbolizes an ulterior motive, of which prioritizes not American culture, but whiteness or white culture. Even for immigrant religious women, who knew nothing more of the culture the United States was attempting to establish than Indigenous children and communities, they were trusted and hired due to their similar customs, and more importantly similar appearances.

Wars are not waged or fought without the intention of a political acquisition. Whether it be retaliation, land, resources or defense (among others), war is not fought with the intention to lose money, resources and lives. The United States federal government’s usage of boarding schools as a mechanism of assimilation into white culture was an attempt to erase an entire culture and the identities of those who belonged to it. The goal was to better suit Native ‘savages’ to live alongside white settlers, as opposed to the justification used, characterized as beneficial to Natives. The point of the schools in fact was not to ‘save the man’ but rather more specifically to ‘kill the Indian,’ in terms of each part of their identity, culture and religion in an attempted cultural genocide.^[21] All actions taken and procedures formed are indicative of a goal aimed towards destroying the culture as well as the passage of culture to future generations. If white colonizers were expected to continue their expansion west and share lands with Native Americans, the only feasible way for this to happen would be if they assimilated to white standards. When applied to the concept of war, the political goal here can be recognized as instituting a society based on a racial hierarchy through an aggressive, ‘educational’ process of cultural genocide. This idea of genocide was hidden behind a guise of service, protection and prosperity for the Native nations, however in reality it was yet another attack on their lifestyle, representing nothing but an attitude of disparagement deeply rooted in a natural aversion to those who are ‘different’, or to put more simply, not white. This was a way to “kill the Indian” with the moral burden of literally taking their lives, or the economic burden of a physical genocide.^[22] 

            The overwhelming employment of foreign educators and nuns in these institutions is a clear display of the United States priorities in ‘Americanizing’ and ‘civilizing’ Native Americans. It was all too common that white immigrant women would arrive in America and immediately begin work in these residential schools in an effort to help civilize these populations.^[23] What one might find interesting about this dynamic is the fact that these immigrant women themselves, were not American. Similarly, new to the culture and customs the United States was building and abiding by, one might assume them unfit to the teachers of a society they themselves were not a part of. The difference between these immigrant women and Native Americans lies solely in the color of their skin and the closer resemblance their society and cultures operated. Through the usage and employment of women from countries such as Germany and Switzerland^[24] to ‘Americanize’ Native Americans, the United States was establishing more than a mechanism of civilization, but rather a mechanism establishing white superiority. In teaching these children the civil American way, what was being instilled in reality was a sense of whiteness as a fixed priority to American culture, as well as an internal opposition to their own heritage. It is clear that Americans looked down upon the entirety of Indigenous culture and way of life and went to extreme lengths to replace an entire race and ethnic identity in pursuit of dominance. Because priorities shifted from genocide to assistane due to concerns of costs in order to overtake Native land, this meant white populations would be expected to neighbor with Native populations. In this case, it seems “save the man” was intended more for the white man and his peace of mind of what he finds acceptable, rather than the true benefit of Indigenous children and communities. These schools, above all, were established to “civilize” Native Americans, based on what Anglo-American settlers considered civilized by their own standards of living. Additionally, in doing so the racial hierarchy was instilled even deeper into the fabric of United States government and society. The United States government took the opportunity of schooling to instill this sense of white superiority in non-white students, creating what is essentially brainwashed individuals, forced into abiding by standards of a society that depends on their oppression.

            Primary sources from students during their time in these residential schools provide many interesting insights, in both what could be considered a positive and negative light. Author and professor of Native American literature Jacqueline Emery’s work, Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press, compiles a wide arrangement of primary accounts of students in school newspapers. The papers are sourced from a few schools, as not many allowed their students a school press. The papers were student run and featured many different submissions from their student body. The sources and newspapers include short stories as a way to maintain cultural heritage through storytelling, as well as editorials from students based on their opinion of schooling and what they were being taught and more. Things like a school newspaper became an outlet for students to maintain their identities as Native Americans, or find a platform to express themselves as new Americans. In this way, sources such as this provide a look into forms of both resistance and full assimilation from the students who experienced this education first hand. One source written by a young Native school boy, details the way in which he now looks down upon Native customs and culture in comparison to white society and Christianity. Joseph Du Bray uses words such as “Indian”, “civilized”, and “foolish”^[25] when describing Native customs, of which he was once a part of with a clear recollection of events, and some formative upbringing. “Before the Indians became civilized they used to have foolish accustoms. I will tell you a few of them…”^[26] It is clear the language Du Bray chooses here and his opinion on the subject matter are a result of his upbringing and education. Referring to himself and his people as ‘Indians’ as opposed to their actual Native nationality would have been something that was reiterated in his schooling, including the belief that prior to United States intervention, Native nations were uncivilized. Furthermore, the use of the word “foolish” against his own customs, which he recounts with clear memory of living with and being taught prior to his time at school, is highly indicative of an environment that emphasized the idea that being Native and Native culture was significantly inferior to white culture. Without the intervention of the United States and religious missionaries, would Du Bray have ever felt this way about his own culture, heritage and people? Would he truly have considered white culture superior to his as he implies, without the efforts of assimilation and brainwashing provided by the United States government? Sources such as Du Pray’s provide one with the ability to see the actual successful results of assimilation on individuals and how it would come to benefit the United States and its ideologies of white superiority. 

            Does it seem wise to send a child to a school with its own cemetery? The implications of an on-site cemetery are grim, and while the practice itself was not uncommon, it is who is being laid to rest in these cemeteries that are cause for concern. More commonly reserved for religious institutions, religious leaders and staff, schools reserved for the acculturation of Indigenous youth confronted a death toll that centered around the student body, as opposed to staff.

Nearly every residential school had its own graveyard, most likely initially intended for the use of staff, the cemeteries quickly became overpopulated with students who would lose their lives to abuse, disease, neglect and mistreatment.^[27] These institutions were framed and justified as constructive and valuable to the civilization and successful lifestyle of Native Americans, though, were this genuinely the case one might safely conclude that the students here would not be losing their lives at a steep rate due to neglect. This was due in part to conditions of the school and school life for children as a result of frugal and abusive practices. The idea had been presented that schooling Native children would cost half the price of which it would cost to engage in war with Native Nations. Projected costs to take the life of a single native were seen at 1 million dollars, whereas educating the native would cost about $1,200.^[28] These economic concerns fueled an ideology that separated violence from the education being inflicted upon Native children and by extension, their Nations. For American policy makers as well as school and government officials, it was the cheapest, most virtuous form of war that could be conceptualized against the entirety of the Native American population in the United States. The frugal practices in question are gross examples of neglect against children who were regarded as disposable due simply to their heritage and ethnicity. Proper nutrition, food preparation and food services to the children were not commonplace across these schools, leading to hundreds of students dying as a result of malnutrition or starvation, in fact, it was more common for institutions to use food as rewards and punishments.^[29] In addition to improper meal services, students were provided with poor clothing that was not suitable for weather or disease ridden conditions. Furthermore, it was no beneficial factor that an overwhelming majority of these institutions experienced overcrowding to levels that proved hazardous for student health and the spread of disease.^[30] If the goal was to ‘save’ Indigenous children’s lives through assimilative education, how could circumstances be so poor that they could go so far as to take them?  In order to manage the death toll at a single boarding school, school officials would send a child who was near death, home to their families and guardians so as not to add to their rising tallies.^[31] While this was not the case for all schools – some being much kinder to their students and their students’ culture^[32] – an overwhelming majority of these schools were guilty of mistreating students in a multitude of ways. The justification of a white man’s ‘salvation’ does not stand in the face of the conditions of neglect and loss of life that resulted. It is clear that those who were in a position of power to establish these dynamics regarded the schools as a cheaper, nicer, alternative to war. However given the extreme levels of neglect, it seems that the goal of assimilating or “killing” the ‘Indian’ were of a higher priority than the wellbeing, and even lives,  of children.

            School is meant to be regarded as a safe space for children, to provide them care and assurance for their lives and more importantly, their futures. Based on records and sources, one can only conclude that this was not the case nor the goal of a single Native American boarding school established. Sadly, neglect and poor conditions were not the only causes for concern a child might hold while attending one of these institutions. Cases of physical, sexual and emotional abuse were all too common for an overwhelming majority of institutes and students. Due to the federal foundations of these institutions and the fact that their existence is dependent on a mentality of racial and cultural inferiority, accountability for these instances of abuse were virtually non-existent.^[33] The violence faced and experienced are indicative of a system whose primary goal is not to benefit Natives as individuals, or a race. Given the fact that the true nature of these schools was to act as a backdoor for a physical war, in a more creative process of destruction and land seizure as opposed to a violent one,^[34] mistreatment and death were no cause for concern nor investigation at the federal or institutional level. One educator, John Boone^[35] was accused and found guilty by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for sexually assaulting over 140 young Native school boys, and faced zero repercussions by the Hopi School, where he worked or the federal government. Accounts and accusations of abuses of any kind from students against faculty are sporadic, due largely in part to the fact that these accusations were ignored and remained uninvestigated by school officials in attempts to protect their staff. Additionally, due to the lack of federal protection from instances such as sexual abuse, schools would not only choose to not reprimand staff, but outwardly refuse.^[36] The lack of basic human protections in these institutions from both the federal government as well as school officials paint a haunting picture of what the average life was like for students, and what these children experienced daily, for years. It seems that based on the average treatment, these schools were considered less of schools and more of housing institutions, where crime against Native youth was acceptable on account of an education that was not for them but an act of violence against them, and their culture. Because America and white Americans had a strong desire to continue to expand west, and needed a morally permissible and cheap alternative to genocide, there was little regard for their protection and well-being. In short, the experience at these schools was extremely violent and devastatingly poor, and as one can presume, not because it is the ideal learning environment. Rather, conditions and experiences were so dreadful for a majority of students who attended because it was not about their education, but control, under white dominance and a racial hierarchy that centralized white superiority. In a society by this design, Anglo-American populations could find themselves in a place where abuse was acceptable, of which many would take advantage in an ongoing conflict of culture and territory. Modern federal and historical investigations estimate the cost of young children’s lives to be nearly 1,000, across over 500 schools, many of whose families were never informed and their bodies buried in unmarked graves. Actions that much more reflect a singular goal of ‘killing the Indian’ rather than saving them, in any regard.

            Given the mistreatment, the widespread philosophy and the assimilative nature of these schools, it is no surprise that Indigenous students and adults alike, resisted this overwhelming oppressive force. Unfortunately, as discussed earlier, attending these schools was not a matter of choice for Native American children or their guardians after the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887. People are not prone to comply with oppressive powers, nor do they resist in the face of systems that are harmless to their well being.^[37] In order for a conflict to reach a level of war, there must be two sides fighting, and Native American populations fought despite narratives that portray them as docile or accepting of oppressive powers. Not all Native Americans were resistant, some embracing the ‘help’ of the United States and assimilation into a white culture, however a vast majority did not accept this treatment and tried to the best of their abilities to fight back, or hold on to their heritage. If resistance to attendance was no longer  plausible, Native children would find ways to resist within the walls and confines of the school. Finding ways to maintain their identities, culture, traditions and language by any means they could conceive, while simultaneously avoiding detection and repercussions from school officials. Some forms of student defiance can be understood as more positive in efforts of cultural maintenance. These efforts would lead to the development of a ‘sub-culture’ among students that was formed in direct defiance of strict school rules and regulations, as well as neglect.^[38] The crime of stealing became common among schools and integrated into this resistant subculture, in an effort to combat mistreatment that would inevitably lead to malnutrition and starvation for many Native children. Stealing and sharing of food to combat hunger was a defining characteristic of community and resistance among these schools, bringing students together in support of each other, against what they felt and recognized as oppressive forces.^[39] The frequency of reported instances of stealing and organization among students to work together to steal is representative of how often large numbers of students were abused through food at the direct hands of these institutions. Another common form of resistance across schools was the usage of Native language despite its usage being forbidden in favor of the English language. Older students would guide younger students, teaching them when it was safest to speak and how to successfully avoid being caught by school officials.^[40] In these ways, community and culture was able to be maintained in secret, providing at least a partial positive outlet for indigenous children to maintain their identities and connections.

Connection, community and heritage were not the only forms of resistance taken by the students of these boarding schools. Suicide was highly common as a form of escape for many Indigenous children attending these institutions and experiencing their brutal realities.^[41] Conditions so poor and dire that they lead children to a point where the best possible means of escape is death. These systems were not designed with the best interest of these communities and children in mind. In order to resist mistreatment, abuse or rejection from the major Anglo-American society taking over the entire territory of the United States, some students would even attempt to run away from home, despite the design of these schools being specifically that prospects of making it back to their home reservations were dim due to their distance from reservations. When caught, students who attempted to flee the schools would be punished severely, reports of shaven heads were common as a result of this attempted escape.^[42] Another account of harsh punishment shares the experience at a school where “language offenders,” or students who had been caught speaking their native language, would be punished routinely by having a needle stuck through their tongue.^[43] In some cases resistance was successful and in others, it added to the misery being faced by these young indigenous children.

The tragic story of Native American oppression at the hands of the United States federal, state and local governments, as well as its citizens operating under the influence of a deep-rooted white-centric American hierarchy, is still a very prevalent issue indigenous communities face in contemporary times. Federal financial support for Native American boarding schools and Native American education was officially concluded in 1969, coinciding with the rise of the Red Power movement in the late 1960’s, a civil rights movement fighting for the equality and rights of Indigenous communities and people. However, oppression against these communities did not end with the conclusion of financial support. Traces of racism and generational trauma both contribute to startling statistics of poverty, suicide, mental health and racial violence faced by the Native American community today. Psychological and historical studies reveal the connections between these shocking statistics of life for Native individuals and communities and the historical violence and oppression they have faced for centuries, continuing well into the twenty-first century. Studies reveal the psychological effects of intergenerational trauma of Native residential schools, being that of a lack of compassion.^[44] An analysis of this effect furthermore extends into higher risks overall of ‘negative behavioral patterns’ including substance abuse.^[45] Trauma related to this history results in a mentality of ‘historical loss’ shared among members of a historically marginalized group.^[46] This mentality feeds into the issues related to low self esteem and that of loss, loss of land, family, culture, autonomy and more can deeply affect the mental health of not one single person, but an entire community. Given the cause and effect relationship between United States intervention, followed by the United States’ abandonment of a community that was cultivated to be dependent on their oppressors,^[47] coupled with over 100 years of an education designed to instill deficit ideologies of identity within thousands of members of a single community, it comes as no surprise that Native communities face such negative circumstances of life on a grand scale. The United States was highly successful in their objective to dismantle and destroy their ‘enemy’ to a degree that is still felt to this day. Furthermore, had the call for Native equality not been so powerful during the Red Power movement, the United States may have continued their funding of Native educational institutions. Oppression against Native communities was not simply a ‘product of the times’ so to speak, rather a system that was intentionally established and continues to be intentionally benefited off of by people and communities in positions of power.

  In an article published by The Washington Post in 2024, researchers spent a year investigating the true number of lives lost in, and at the hands of these residential schools, and furthermore, by the federal government.^[48] The official number reported by the United States government was close to 1,000 lives lost, through an investigation of official government and school documents, as well as testimonies and sources of students who attended these schools, the Washington Post’s research team and investigation revealed the true nature of death resulting from these school was more accurately, well over 3,000. This research highlights many troubling aspects that further illustrate the cruelty of these institutions, as well as the United States government and people. Records indicate that around 800 of these children lost their lives and were buried on school property in unmarked graves, many having died with no notice home to inform family. Additionally, the intentional, or unintentional inaccuracy of the reported death toll further emphasizes the continued disregard the United States government had, and has for Native communities. The loss experienced is a direct result of American intervention, and colonization. Research and analysis today into the history, impacts, and reparations surrounding assimilative residential schools continue to reveal the brutal treatment and negative effects Native children faced. Historical authors and researchers that can be considered part of the decolonizing historiographical perspective such as Judi Gaiashkibos help to shine a light on the violence and cruel nature of these schools, and how it affected children and for Gaiashkibos, family; “These were not schools, they were prison camps. They were work camps.”^[49] The inability to take full accountability and accurately represent the lives of children lost, even as recently as 2024, further emphasizes the success of this racist educational strategy of centering whiteness in American culture, as well as domination over the multiple nations of people deemed ‘savage’. Continued investigation into this harsh history also highlights the continued impacts that are still very much felt by indigenous communities today, who continue their effort in framing these schools out of a perspective of education and into violence, or more accurately, war against Native Americans.

The history of Native American boarding schools is one of violence, force, assimilation and white superiority. The children who attended these institutions experienced exploitation, abuse and mistreatment in a variety of ways, simply because staff and officials could treat them this way, and accepted it because they had effectively positioned them as people lower than that of white people. The United States government employed the usage of their military to forcefully relocate and kidnap children from their homes and reservations, to specifically brainwash and assimilate them into what was deemed ‘civilized culture’. This system and process was unkind and cruel, with thousands of children dying under the care of government funded schools that forced them against their will to attend. Using the children for exhausting work and starving them of food to the point where they began to band together and steal food can not be framed as beneficial for their lives and futures as Americans, of which they never asked nor necessarily agreed to be. Targeting the youth in order to instill fear, dismantle unity from within, and use this fracturing of community to further negotiate more and more land for the allotment of the United States was the purpose of these institutions. Additionally, brainwashing the youth into believing white culture is superior to their own, and even accepting their lower position in this hierarchical society based on race. In order to save money, and remain moral in some ways, while still gaining what was desired, boarding schools designed specifically to educate and assimilate Native youth were the perfect way to carry out “killing the Indian”. In order to cater to the comfort of Anglo-Americans who would be living side by side with Natives, their dominance would have to be solidified in a new American order. These tactics, strategies, mindsets and approaches paint a picture of violent assault on a community to a shockingly high degree. Rather than engage in a war with weapons, ‘man versus man’, it was an alternative war of ideology and identity. The United States attacked their enemy through their impressionable, youngest   generations and abused them into compliance and assimilation in order to achieve a society, social rank and allotments of land that were acceptable, and beneficial for the white majority. 

Native American history after the introduction of white colonizers is one of the darkest and most negative parts of the United States and Native American history. The mistreatment of these children can only be understood as an act of war against Native Americans, in a way that was more morally acceptable than blatant violence and bloodshed. The abuse faced in these institutions cannot be justified as beneficial or useful methods of learning by any means, leading only to harm, death and trauma that extends beyond generations and affects the lives of Native individuals, communities and relations with the United States government today. The mistreatment and little regard for the well-being and lives of indigenous youth, coupled with the resulting socio-geographical gain won by the United States was no mistake. The educational residential institutions may have been framed as beneficial and supportive of Native success and longevity of the race, however actions and results speak of a different narrative.

In order to secure Natives into the lowest rungs of a white centric society, seize their land and finally, legally abuse and murder them, (all while remaining financially conscious) these schools were established. How could the exploitation of students for physical labor relate to the language they speak or the religion they follow? While not all schools shared the same horrors of violence, some even being fairly positive places, the goal was always the same: “Kill the Indian, save the man.” Had concerns of faith and costs been different, or balanced in the opposite direction the call to war would have been much clearer and far less sneaky. The purpose of these institutions, above all, was to enact war against an entire people and their way of life in a subtle, yet nearly equally violent manner. In this way the United States effectively waged an alternate form of war, through the guise of salvation and education.

Native American history is one of, if not the most neglected history of the Americas. For most American students, the chances of learning more about Native Americans past the fictitious happy narrative of the first thanksgiving is rather slim. Educators of history, both future and present, have the opportunity to join the historical reconciliation movement that has arisen with the decolonizing perspective of Native American histories. Truth is of the utmost importance in the history classroom if we are to help students better understand the present through the history of their home. Secondary students are not in need of a sugar coated narrative of history, and would much more benefit from an understanding of history that faces the truth, even the darkest  parts head on, instead of sweeping them aside to maintain a happy image of the United States. Furthermore, as previously mentioned Native populations face some of the most grim statistics of any other group in the United States, due in part to the history of assimilation boarding schools, as well as many more aspects of history that continue to go untold. It is important for educators to learn and acknowledge these histories, not only in pursuit of historical reconciliation, but to analyze and understand the many ways in which schooling can be used as a tool for success, as well as manipulation. In a time where teaching history is as contested as ever, it has never been more important to understand education in this way, to ensure it is being taught for the good of our students, and not for ulterior motives.

References

Adams, David. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School     Experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Beaver, R. Pierce. Church, State, and the American Indians: Indian Missions in the New Nations. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966.

Carroll, James. Seeds of Faith: Catholic Indian Boarding Schools. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000.

Crawford, Neta C. “What Is War Good for? Background Ideas and Assumptions about the Legitimacy, Utility, and Costs of Offensive War.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18, no. 2 (2016): 282–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148115613662.

Devens, Carol. “If We Get the Girls, We Get the Race: Missionary Education of Native American Girls.” Journal of World History. Vol. 3, No. 2 (1992).

Emery, Jacqueline, ed. Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press. University of Nebraska Press, 2020.

Haig-Brown, Celia. Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. Canada: Tillacum Library, 1988.

Henriksson, Markku. The Indian on Capitol Hill: Indian Legislation and the United States Congress, 1862-1907. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988.

Hill, Edward, E. Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1981.

Lomawaima, K. Tsianina, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, and Teresa L. McCarty. “Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue: Native American Boarding School Stories.” Journal of American Indian Education 57, no. 1 (March 1, 2018): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1353/jaie.2018.a798593.

McBride, Preston. “Indian Boarding School Deaths, Burial Sites Far Exceed U.S. Government Counts.” Washington Post, December 22, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/native-american-deaths-burial-sites-boarding-schools/.

Piccard, Ann. Death by Boarding School: The Last Acceptable Racism and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans. Gonzaga Law Review 49, no. 1 (2013-2014): 137-[vi]

Sebwenna-Painter, Kaitlyn, Amoneeta Beckstein, Sue Kraus, “Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools.” American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research. Vol. 30, 2023. https://coloradosph.cuanschutz.edu/docs/librariesprovider205/journal_files/vol30/30_2_2023_1_sebwenna-painter.pdf.

Smith, Andrea. “Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations”. Social Justice 31, no. 4 (2004): 89-102. https://login.tcnj.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/boarding-school-abuses-human-rights-reparations/docview/231920785/se-2.

United States. Office of Indian Affairs: Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the Year 1891. 60th (1891). 

^[1] David W. Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 56.

^[2] Pierce R. Beaver. Church, State, and the American Indians: Indian Missions in the New Nations. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966).

^[3] Beaver, Church, State, and the American Indians, 25.

^[4] Neta C. Crawford, What is War Good For? Background Ideas and Assumptions About the Legitimacy, Utility, and Costs of Offensive War, 18 (The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2016).

^[5] Markku Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill: Indian Legislation and the United States Congress, 1862-1907. (Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988), 96.

^[6] Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill, 21.

^[7] Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill, 98.

^[8] United States Office of Indian Affairs, Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the year 1891, 60th. (Washington D.C.: Office of Indian Affairs, 1891).

^[9] Carol Devens, Journal of World History, “If We Get the Girls, We Get the Race: Missionary Education of Native American Girls”, 3. (Hawaii: University of Hawaii), 223.

^[10] Edward E. Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians. (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1981), 29.

^[11] Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians, 30.

^[12] Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians, 29.

^[13] David Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 301.

^[14] Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians, 155.

^[15] Tsianina K. Lomawaima, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, and Teresa L. McCarty, Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue: Native American Boarding School Stories, Journal of American Indian Education 57, no. 1. (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2018).

^[16] Ann Piccard, Death by Boarding School: The Last Acceptable Racism and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans, no. 1. (Gonzaga Law Review 49), 141.

^[17] Piccard, Death by Boarding School.

^[18] Beaver, Church, State, and the American Indians.

^[19] James T. Carroll, Seeds of Faith: Catholic Indian Boarding Schools. (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000).

^[20] Carroll, Seeds of Faith, 170.

^[21] Piccard, Death by Boarding School, 155.  

^[22] Andrea Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations. (Social Justice Vol. 31, No. 4, 2004), 90.

^[23] Carroll, Seeds of Faith.

^[24] Carroll, Seeds of Faith, 15.

^[25] Jacqueline Emery, ed., Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press. (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2020), 75.

^[26] Jacqueline Emery, ed., Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press. (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2020), 75.

^[27] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations.

^[28] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 90.

^[29] Celia Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. (Canada: Tillacum Library, 1988), 99.

^[30] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations.

^[31] Adams, Education for Extinction.

^[32] Carroll, Seeds of Faith, 170.

^[33] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 91.

^[34] Devens, If We Get the Girls, We Get the Race, 223. 

^[35] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 95.

^[36] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 95.

^[37] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 5.

^[38] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 98.

^[39] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 99.

^[40] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 104.

^[41] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 123.

^[42] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 109.

^[43] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 16.

^[44] Kaitlyn Sebwenna-Painter, Amoneeta Beckstein, and Sue Kraus, Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools. (University of Colorado: Anschutz Medical Campus), 3.

^[45] Sebwenna-Painter, Beckstein, and Kraus, Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools, 3.

^[46] Sebwenna-Painter, Beckstein, and Kraus, Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools, 5.

^[47]Adams, Education for Extinction, 337.

^[48] Dana Hedgpeth Sari Horwitz Chikwendiu Joyce Lee, Andrew Tran, Nilo Tabrizy, Jahi, Indian Boarding School Deaths, Burial Sites Far Exceed U.S. Government Counts. (Washington Post, December 22, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/native-american-deaths-burial-sites-boarding-schools/.

^[49] Chikwendiu, Indian Boarding School Deaths, Burial Sites Far Exceed U.S. Government Counts.