Introduction
The United States’ history of Indigenous assimilation policies is characterized by several deliberate attempts to adapt and include Indigenous peoples into the social and cultural standards of European-American society. These strategies, implemented beginning in the 19th century, sought to replace Indigenous peoples’ predominant cultures, languages, and spiritual beliefs with those of European settlers. These programs were often implemented by forcibly removing people from their ancestral lands, putting them in boarding schools, and imposing European-American religion and agricultural methods.
An egregious illustration of these attempts at integration was the founding of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in 1879 (Evans, 2023). Established in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, by Richard Henry Pratt, the school served as the premier establishment of the off-reservation residential school system. Indigenous children were prevented from speaking their native languages, had their names altered, and were deprived of their indigenous clothes at Carlisle and similar schools. Rather, they were instructed in Christianity and English, and their work skills and habits were essential for assimilating into American culture.
Indigenous assimilation policies had a strong and wide-ranging effect on Indigenous identity, influencing many generations. Although assimilation was the stated objective, the techniques used were often forceful and stripped the pupils of their cultural and individual identities. However, Carlisle’s tale is about more than just victimization; it is also about agency and resiliency. Many Indigenous students managed to fight, adjust, and negotiate their identities within the restrictions placed upon them despite the repressive atmosphere.
Pratt provides a striking image of cultural erasure and supremacy via his words and the institutional rhetoric that followed his judgments at Carlisle. Examining this in conjunction with the feedback from Indigenous students, in the form of letters, reports, and subsequent testimony, demonstrates a nuanced interaction between coercion and resistance. This rhetorical exchange demonstrates how Indigenous students actively engaged with assimilation practices rather than accepting them passively.
Thus, this thesis aims to examine how this intricate interaction is reflected in the speech of the Indigenous students and the creator of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. The famous quote from Pratt read, “Kill the Indian, and save the man” (Andrasik et al., 2022). This catchphrase highlighted the degrading effects of integration programs and reflected the fundamental goals of these organizations, which underpin the theory’s thesis.
This analysis seeks to shed light on the significant effects of these assimilation policies on Indigenous identities by examining Pratt’s writings and speeches alongside students’ responses, ranging from compliance to resistance. This shows not only a history of subjugation but also one of negotiation and resiliency. By using this lens, one may get a clearer understanding of the long-lasting impacts of assimilation efforts on Indigenous people in the United States via the historical relevance of such speech.
Context: Assimilation and the Carlisle Indian Industrial School
Historical Background
The founding of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School was intricately linked to the larger thrust of American policy toward Native Americans in the 19th century. Several battles, forced relocations such as the Trail of Tears, and many treaties that often resulted in significant loss of tribal territory and sovereignty were the hallmarks of these policies (Joseph, 2021). Richard Henry Pratt, a former Army commander who oversaw Indigenous prisoners of war at Fort Marion in Florida, viewed education as a new route forward in this environment of continuous violence and exile. Pratt’s belief in the possibility of “civilizing” Indigenous peoples by taking them from their villages and exposing them to European-American society was shaped by his military experience and his encounters with these captives.
Under this revolutionary ideology—holding that Indigenous traditions should be conquered rather than preserved—Pratt established the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. He believed that Native Americans might become equal members of society and contributing members of the mainstream via cultural assimilation and education. His pioneering but divisive approach to education at Carlisle suggested that it might serve as an instrument for both complete cultural change and learning.
Pratt sought to deprive Indigenous children of their traditional identities and reconstruct them as Americans by forcibly transferring them from their tribal settings to Carlisle, Pennsylvania. This unconventional method of assimilation via education was a reflection of the paternalistic, broader American cultural notion that Indigenous peoples needed to be saved from themselves. This attitude served as the foundation for many of the policies that were implemented at the time against Indigenous communities.
Pratt’s Philosophy
Pratt vividly described the cultural absorption of Native Americans in his philosophy. “Kill the Indian, and save the man,” as encapsulated in Richard Henry Pratt’s philosophy, is a terrifying vision for the integration of Native Americans into American culture (Andrasik et al., 2022). This was the physical design for the annihilation of Indigenous identities and their replacement with new identities shaped in the image of the dominant white culture.
It was the guiding philosophy of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. It was much more than just a metaphor. Pratt thought he could create a new identity for his pupils, one free of their tribal background and assimilated into the white, capitalist framework of American society, by removing the cultural markers that characterized Indigenous life, such as language, clothing, and rituals.
Pratt’s strategy was indicative of a larger cultural haughtiness that was prevalent during that period, according to which Western culture was superior to all others, and that it was the responsibility of white people to improve the lot of the so-called savage peoples. This paternalism saw Indigenous traditions as barriers to be removed rather than as valuable and rich. By imposing this thinking, Pratt and others aimed to profoundly transform Indigenous peoples’ self-perception and how the general public saw them (Copland & McPake, 2021).
In addition to being instructional strategies, the school’s policies, which included punishing students for using their original tongues and making them adopt European-American customs, were instruments of cultural conversion intended to gradually destroy Indigenous identities and replace them with ones that were entirely created by and for the benefit of the dominant culture. This tactic relates to a larger historical pattern of colonialism in which those in positions of authority control and mold identity and power, often leaving a legacy of pain and lost heritage in their aftermath.
School Practices
Richard Henry Pratt’s assimilationist ideology was strictly enforced at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School via several onerous, invasive regulations that aimed to transform the identities of Indigenous pupils. These actions were cultural erasing processes intended to break connections with Indigenous ancestry and promote assimilation into Euro-American culture, not only instructional tactics. Students saw abrupt, startling changes as soon as they arrived.
They were forced to wear Western-style uniforms instead of their native attire, which often had cultural and spiritual value. This deed represented the erasure of their cultural identity. Similarly, they were forced to chop off their long hair, which is a sacred emblem of cultural identification for many Indigenous communities. Anglo-American names, often given at random, took the place of names closely associated with a person’s and a community’s identity.
Students were further estranged from their heritage when Indigenous languages were eradicated and replaced with an English-only curriculum. It was frowned upon, and speaking their languages was sometimes greeted with severe punishment. Their relationships with their towns and forefathers were severely damaged by the loss of language, a vital conduit of culture and history.
Another cornerstone of Carlisle’s absorption effort was Christianization (Givens & Ison, 2022). Indigenous spiritual rituals were repressed, and students were brainwashed into becoming Christians even though these activities are essential to both individual identity and communal harmony. Their spiritual landscapes were altered as a result, and it also helped them become more in line with the standards of mainstream, Christian-dominated American culture.
Pratt’s view on the need for uniformity and order was also reflected in the school’s military-style discipline. In addition to being divided into companies, students had to participate in military exercises and undergo frequent inspections. Pratt aimed to integrate these young people into industrialized American culture by instilling qualities such as discipline, order, and punctuality through this rigorous program. Every one of these Carlisle practices was intended to transform the pupils and educate them.
Pratt believed that by imposing strict control and reformation on every aspect of life, Indigenous children could be transformed into citizens who could not be distinguished from their white peers. This approach to saving them involved killing the Indian in them. The school’s environment more closely resembled a military institution than an educational one. This all-encompassing educational strategy highlights the extent of the cultural assault that Indigenous kids endure, having a significant effect on their identities and legacies.
Impact on Indigenous Students and Their Communities
Carlisle’s integration practices had a significant and long-lasting effect on Native American students and their communities. The institution’s severe cultural change tactics led to a significant loss of identity, language, and customs. Many of the students felt deeply alienated, cut off from both their own cultures and the mainstream American society they were being compelled to join.
Students showed perseverance and resistance in the face of this repressive atmosphere. Many developed clandestine means to preserve their cultural legacy despite strict restrictions. They developed close relationships with one another, spoke their original tongues in clandestine settings, and engaged in cultural rites in secret, all of which helped preserve their identities. Their refusal showed how determined they were to maintain their uniqueness and heritage.
Carlisle left behind a legacy that is a mosaic of tragedy and success. Even while well-known alums like renowned athlete Jim Thorpe and writer Zitkala-Ša went on to have successful careers, many former pupils spoke of the profound psychological damage their time at the school had caused them. This trauma, often passed down to subsequent generations, underscores the complex history of these organizations. Remarkably, the contacts between students from different tribes also laid the foundations for a pan-Indian identity and subsequent movements, enabling coalitions among tribes and a united front in political and cultural arenas. Therefore, while assimilation was Carlisle’s main goal, it unintentionally created a fertile foundation for an emerging Indigenous advocacy and resistance movement.
Analysis of Indigenous Rhetoric
Richard Henry Pratt’s Rhetoric
The creator of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, Richard Henry Pratt, was a key figure in justifying and normalizing the brutal assimilation policies of the day, as can be shown from an analysis of his discourse. Pratt often portrays indigenous cultures as in need of self-preservation, using language full of reform and progress. Pratt’s renowned catchphrase, “Kill the Indian, and save the man,” describes his general outlook and method of teaching Indigenous peoples (Andrasik et al., 2022). This harsh but concise phrase expresses his conviction that an individual’s Indigenous identity was intrinsically inferior and had to be eliminated for them to contribute well to American civilization.
A famous commander once said, “The only good Indian is a dead one,” and Pratt quoted him in a 1892 speech. “That lofty sanction of his annihilation has played a major role in encouraging murders among the Indian people” (Klotz, 2021). I agree with the attitude, but only in the sense that every single Indian in the race needs to be exterminated. Save the man by eliminating the Indian inside him.
Pratt often used the image of death and rebirth in his speech, implying that Indigenous children might be resurrected into civilization via Carlisle’s educational methods. According to him, the school serves as a furnace for molding students into the image of Euro-American standards by removing their savage heritage. This strategy is clear in his many works, where he advocates for schools as vital interventions to improve what he saw to be the miserable conditions of Indigenous people’s lives. He said that the school’s practices of chopping off kids’ hair and altering their names, for example, eliminated the symbols of savagery.
Furthermore, Pratt’s paternalistic tone was often used in his speeches and writings, highlighting his belief that Indigenous peoples are like children who need direction from the superior American culture. Pratt said that we make our greatest mistake in feeding our civilization to the Indians instead of the Indians feeding our civilization, in an article for the North American Review. Because we never subjected the Indian to the demands of civilization, America has never attempted to civilize him.
Pratt’s discourse sought to legitimize integration techniques through these assertions. He presented the elimination of culture required for assimilation as a kind act, casting doubt on its brutality because of its noble motives. His choice of words sought to recast forced integration as an ethical duty of American society—a responsibility to elevate and reform.
Pratt’s public relations also deftly catered to the attitudes of the general American public, which was often ready to support measures that offered a resolution to the Indian problem. His discourse, which portrayed the transformation of Indigenous peoples as essential to national security and prosperity, catered to the social and economic goals of the day. Analyzing Pratt’s writings and speeches reveals that his language was a calculated tactic to win public and political support for his educational initiatives and reflect his beliefs.
Pratt masterfully subdued the forceful, sometimes cruel reality of his techniques by framing his assimilationist ideals regarding redemption and progress as the enlightened path to a united American society. By strategically manipulating language, assimilation programs were maintained and even strengthened, affecting public opinion and government policy toward Indigenous peoples far into the 20th century.
Indigenous Responses
Richard Henry Pratt’s rhetoric is poignantly contrasted with the reactions of Indigenous pupils at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School to the demands of assimilation. Analyzing the student-written letters, essays, and reports presents a complicated picture of opposition, compromise, and—in some situations—reluctant acceptance. These records provide insightful information on how Native American students saw and handled attempts to deprive them of their cultural identity.
The persistence and nuanced kinds of resistance Indigenous students show in their replies are among their most remarkable features. For instance, one youngster stated in a letter home, “They tell us that our ways are bad.” Their goal is to steal our souls and replace them with their own. However, our souls belong to ourselves. This feeling echoes a recurring theme seen in the writings of Carlisle students: a subdued rebellion and a stubborn adherence to cultural origins in the face of oppression.
Writings of Sioux writer Zitkala-Ša (Gertrude Bonnin), a former Carlisle student who became a vocal opponent of the school’s practices, provide another example of resistance. She portrayed the suffering and bewilderment that Indigenous children at Carlisle went through in detail in her writings and tales. In “The School Days of an Indian Girl,” she said, “I recall the day I was compelled to cut off my long hair, which had been my source of pride… I sobbed out loud and kept shaking my head till I felt the cold scissors’ blades on my neck and heard them bite through one of my thick strands.” Her poems express a deeper, psychological, and emotional opposition against forced integration and detail the physical actions of resistance.
Another issue in the kids’ work is negotiating identity. A few pupils sought to balance their cultural heritage with assimilation requirements after realizing the potential benefits of education. One kid wrote, “I learned the white man’s ways to help my people,” in a report to the school. This quote demonstrates the practical approach some students took, advocating for and advancing their communities’ interests with the knowledge and abilities they received at Carlisle.
Some pupils expressed acceptance despite the dominant narratives of resistance and negotiation; they understood the lessons taught at school and adopted the new identity thrust upon them. This acceptance is reflected in a letter from another kid, who writes that they will try to be a good man even though they are no longer an Indian. This acceptance often carried a hint of loss and resignation, suggesting that assimilation had at least partially achieved its goal.
Indigenous pupils’ language often veered between rebellion and submission, reflecting the nuanced dynamics of their circumstances. They shared their experiences and coping mechanisms for accepting or rejecting integration through their works, which served as a vehicle for personal and group expression. When one compares Pratt’s rhetoric with these Indigenous viewpoints, one can see how there is a glaring contradiction between the students’ demonstrations of resistance and his beliefs about cultural oblivion as a means of redemption. While Pratt saw integration as a moral need, students often felt it was dangerous to their individuality and sense of self.
Interpretation of Rhetoric
The discourse surrounding the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, as articulated by Richard Henry Pratt and the Indigenous students who attended, offers a valuable perspective on how language shapes social attitudes and views. This interplay of narratives shaped opinions about the school’s influence and had a long-lasting mark on Indigenous communities and American culture. Assimilationist language permeated Pratt’s discourse, which depicted the school as a kind organization committed to rescuing Indigenous peoples from what he saw as their archaic and destructive cultural customs.
Through the propagation of the idea that “Kill the Indian, and save the man,” Pratt presented the erasure and absorption of Indigenous culture as essential to the survival and assimilation of these peoples into American civilization(Travis et al., 2022). A large portion of the American public and government leaders at the time found appeal in this story, which served to support the expansionist mindset of the day and the then-current policy of Indigenous assimilation. It supported the broader narrative of American progress and destiny, which explained away many historical injustices as essential to the country’s development and success.
The Indigenous students’ speech, on the other hand, offers another story. They often expressed a feeling of loss in their letters and reports—of identity, language, and culture—but also of resiliency and resistance. For example, the moving narratives of cultural repression and personal suffering related by former students like Zitkala-Ša brought to light the deep personal and collective pain caused by the institution(Bentley, 2019). By highlighting the stark discrepancy between Pratt’s intentions and the real effects of his policies on Indigenous life, these accounts helped to humanize the experience of Indigenous people.
The conflicting accounts from Pratt and the pupils produced a convoluted picture of the Carlisle school’s influence. Those who supported assimilation programs hailed the school as a success story and proof of education’s ability to reform and integrate. Critics, mostly from Indigenous communities and understanding onlookers, saw it as the pinnacle of the brutality and devastation that come with forced assimilation.
This discourse has important wider ramifications for both Indigenous people and American culture. The discourse supported white supremacy and manifest destiny, which served as the foundation for most of the country’s territorial expansion and relations with Indigenous peoples in the eyes of mainstream American culture. It justified invasive measures and continued physical and cultural annihilation under the pretense of progress and education.
The discourse among Indigenous communities was crucial in cultivating a feeling of collective identity and solidarity against the forces of assimilation. Alums from Carlisle’s common experiences sparked a larger campaign for Indigenous rights that became stronger throughout the 20th century (Travis et al., 2022). Their testimonies and campaigning brought Indigenous rights and autonomy to the attention of non-Indigenous people, gradually influencing public opinion and legislation.
In addition, the conflicting stories prompted a reassessment of the contributions left by organizations like Carlisle. The compelling personal tales and culturally resilient sentiments contained in Indigenous speech challenged the prevailing narratives of the day. They laid the groundwork for later generations to seek justice and acknowledgment. This has given rise to modern movements that aim to right past wrongs and promote healing and reconciliation.
References
Andrasik, M. P., Maunakea, A. K., Oseso, L., Rodríguez-Díaz, C. E., Wallace, S. E., Walters, K. L., & Yukawa, M. (2022). Awakening. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, 36(2), 295–308.
Copland, F., & McPake, J. (2021). ‘Building a new public idea about language’?: Multilingualism and language learning in the post-Brexit UK. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(2), 117–136.
Evans, I. (2023). This land is your land, this land is my Land: Environmental education curriculum at federal Indian schools as a conduit for colonial violence and the native resistance and resilience with which it was met. Scholarship @ Claremont.
Joseph, A. S. (2021). A modern trail of tears: The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) crisis in the US. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 79.
Klotz, S. (2021). Writing their bodies: Restoring Rhetorical Relations at the Carlisle Indian School. Utah State University Press.
Travis, C., Dixon, D. P., Bergmann, L., Legg, R., & Crampsie, A. (2022). Routledge Handbook of the Digital Environmental Humanities. Routledge.