In Bismarck, ND, there is a movement to change a local park’s name from Custer Park. The movement has been a couple of years in the making, but is once again making news. The reason for the proposed name change is because we shouldn’t “honor or glorify a person who led mass killings of our indigenous peoples.” Another argument is that new people to town are “going to assume we are hostile to Native Americans.”
I believe at times there is a need to rename places. Restoring the name Denali to an Alaskan mountain makes sense. It restores history. But often, the motivation for changing a name isn’t to restore history, or to promote justice, but instead is to promote one view of history.
It is this latter reason, I propose, why there is a move to change the name of Custer Park. I’d argue that the above arguments in regards to changing the name are based on false history, and are part of a wider attempt to rewrite history.
This is occurring in a larger realm. The understanding of history is changing in part. Mythical heroes of the past are being more critically examined, and many are attempting to put forth a more balanced view of those individuals. Their flaws are being worked out, so instead of a static individual, they become much more complex.
However, within popular understanding, this change is taking on a much more extreme transformation. Instead of stopping somewhere in the middle, the pendulum is swinging to the other side, turning these once mythic heroes into devils. The truth though lies somewhere closer to the center.
Quick aside. The second argument for the need to change the name is a fallacious argument. If the name of a single park were to make visitors believe that the city was hostile to Native Americans is improbable. To look at a city, and zero in only on one name, which in turns causes someone’s entire view of the area to change, is illogical. To do such requires a person to put on massive blinders, and ignore vast swathes of history.
If a person looks at Custer Park, and comes out with the conclusion that the City in general is hostile to Native Americans, deeper issues are at the root. I believe that deeper issue is a thorough misunderstanding of history, as well as the common trend to lump all Native Americans together in a monolithic entity, which ignores their individuality and their own complex histories.
It is this issue that the original argument stems from.
Custer was a very complicated individual. Yet he is most known because of the Battle of Little Bighorn, or the Battle of Greasy Grass as it is known to the Lakota. But even his death is often shrouded in misinformation and misunderstanding. It is often assumed that his downfall was arrogance, and poor military tactic, a view that was largely promoted by President Grant, someone Custer went toe to toe with in the past.
That misunderstanding is a shame in itself, as it wasn’t so much that Custer lost, but that the Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapaho won. As many historians are now increasingly pointing out, the tribes were much better prepared, and performed in a superior fashion militarily. They were a force to be reckoned with. They defeated Custer, which is what should be highlighted.
Sadly, we often strip that away by trying to explain Custer’s actions as a blunder. His overall strategy was largely sound, but he was out maneuvered.
Yet, the Battle of the Little Bighorn is just a small portion of Custer’s life. By nearly all accounts, he was instrumental in the Civil War, so much so that Libbie Custer was gifted the writing table in which the treaty to end the Civil War was signed. She was gifted it by General Philip Sheridan because of the role Custer played.
After the Civil War, Custer fought against the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas. Like many Americans, he struggled with the idea of emancipation, and what it meant for the country, but he also attempted to work through it. He wasn’t a civil rights leader, but he wasn’t some blind follower either. He was complex.
He is also responsible for the Washita Massacre. He charged into a sleeping village, and atrocities were committed. He was far from a saint, but he was more complex than many are willing to acknowledge.
Following the Massacre, Custer would meet with Southern Cheyenne leaders, and their he participated in a ceremony involving a peace pipe. According to his own words, he submitted to the authority of the Cheyenne medicine man.
His history with the Cheyenne would be much more complicated. In 1869, Custer would meet a Cheyenne woman named Meotzi, and according to oral tradition, they would have a son, Yellow Swallow. According to tradition, Custer promised to return for Meotzi. As far as Meotzi was concerned, Custer was her husband, and upon his death, she mourned deeply.
It is said that because of his relationship with Meotzi, and him being the father of Yellow Swallow, his body was not mutilated after his death. Instead, a few Cheyenne women recognized him, and out of kinship, spared his body.
His relationship with the Arikara is a bit more straightforward, as they shared a common enemy; the Lakota. Arikara men would enlist as scouts for the U.S. Army. Possibly the most famous was Bloody Knife, who became close friends with Custer.
Custer’s view on Native Americans was also quite complex. He was a military man, and he saw the Plain’s Indians that he was fighting to be enemies. At the same time, he saw many of those who chose to reside on the reservations to be allies, and often held them in high regard. But then even his view on the Plain’s Indian Wars was rather complex, seeing it more theatrical. That both had to play their part, and it was inevitable that “civilization” would win out.
He also understood why some Native Americans fought so fiercely to freely roam; because, as he admitted, if he was an Indian, that is what he would chose as well. And at times he even felt a sense of kinship with those he was fighting, especially when they showed remarkable bravery and skill.
One aspect often ignored about Custer is that while he was fighting against the Plain’s Indians in the west, in the east he also found himself fighting on the behalf and Native Americans; against corruption that he observed in Indian Country. Testifying before Congress, he went toe to toe with President Grant, and it nearly cost him his career.
His views on Native Americans was one that was complex, and was in a state of evolution. He was influenced not only by the time and place he was born and lived, but also the fact that he was a military man. He made attempts to be more understanding. At times he also utterly failed. And in the end, he has really become a scapegoat for both Americans and Native peoples.
To paint him as just bad simply doesn’t work, as he, like most people, are so much more diverse. If we look at his life, we see something much different than the new myth that is being created.
This leaves changing the name of Custer Park something that should be much more complicated. To simply say that we need to change it because he’s a terrible individual, one who shouldn’t be honored in anyway, is an argument based on misunderstanding and false history. It’s an argument from ignorance, and that in itself shouldn’t convince people to change the name of a place, because it sets a terrible precedence. Is their some other argument for changing the name of Custer Park? I don’t know.
Personally, I believe what would be best for the community would be to use the park as a learning tool. Use it to explore history in a more balanced manner. Explore the complex of Custer, of local tribes, and how the US and Native Americans interacted during the 1800s. It’s a history we can build on, and use to become more understanding of each other.
Instead of changing the name, I would propose to use locations like Custer Park as places that a discussion can begin.
