Featured Letter: A trip back in time
“Major” Peter Ronan, Indian agent extraordinaire (a three-volume set of his Indian Service correspondence will soon be published), was a significant influence on the tribes from 1877 to 1893 when he died unexpectedly at age 55. During his long and respected tenure—and being a product of his times—he oversaw the “civilizing” of the tribes on the Flathead.
By the time of his death, tribal members were engaged in raising cattle and horses, harvesting wheat, oats, and productive gardens, even raising fruit trees. They had roads, bridges and irrigation canals. They constructed a wood-lined flume (using Indian labor and resources) to complement the irrigation channels. Most had farm plots (not allotments) with log homes, fences, and barns. Many were as financially comfortable as most rural Montanans in 1900.
Michael Gale’s recent pretentious retelling of tribal history claiming those times involved “...lack of vegetation…dirt and rocks…famine and disease,” is seriously flawed. But, then, along came Gale’s (white) “ancestors” whom we are told to appreciate—and prosperity followed. True, but it could never have happened without shamefully enforcing allotment.
Ronan personally supported allotment (Allotment Act of 1887) but, to his credit, rejected its application to the reservation because of serious widespread tribal opposition. Had he lived he might have limited its devastating effect, but future Indian agents were insensitive to its impact.
The opening of the reservation was driven by white economic self-interest. The local business and political community was concerned with transferring tribal assets to white homesteaders with the hope of increasing profits and political support. For land they were then forced to sell, the tribes were paid less than 25¢ on the dollar (grand larceny is a suitable description). An irrigation system soon followed but it largely benefited the new white farmers.
The truly devastating part of allotment was forcing the tribes to sell a large portion of their assets—land—at far less than market value. With future assets essentially lost, a “successful” tribe became poor nearly overnight.
Allotment left the tribes impoverished and divided by a foreign culture, on land originally reserved for their “exclusive use and benefit.” Along with their land, the tribes lost their developing prosperity…but, fortunately, not their sovereignty.
Hopefully, upon refocusing Michael Gale’s romanticized version of reservation history, one can perceive the enormous hurdles the tribes have overcome in reaching their current level of prosperity and success—and respect their determination to have a say in political decisions affecting their welfare.
Dr. Bill Bennington
Polson