Chiefs at LBH

[Diane Merkel]

From a website visitor:

Were there 12 Chiefs at LBH? Can you name them?

[biggordie]

Chiefs of what? Band chiefs? Warrior Societies leaders? Religious leaders? Depending upon one's definition, there might have been considerably more than a dozen Cheyenne chiefs and leaders, let alone those among the Lakota, and the few Dakota, there.

Ask the visitor to refine his/her question, and we'll see what we can do - at least I will. I'm certain others will chip in as well, since this is an "open" subject.

Gordie

[clw]

What an odd question. The answer to the first part is 'yes'. The answer to the second part in 'which 12 would you like named?'

[BrokenSword]

I love you website visitor. This is a perfect opportunity for me to couch my ignorance - yet again - under the vail of discussion.

Isn't the title 'chief,' in fact, 'white' in concept? The Indians certainly had leaders. Men who attracted a following by force of deeds and display of wisdom, but not in the sense of having been chosen.

To say someone was a chief rather suggests some sort of formal title bestowed on an individual where no such title existed.

Influence grew and waned. Followers swelled in numbers and drifted away, but there was really no such thing as, 'We elected him so we follow.'

I suppose a list of some sort could be concocted that contains individuals who held sway, to one degree or another, on the precise day of the battle. I just don't know that a list naming this one a chief and that one not is anything but arbitrary in design.

I'm not clear on it. Clw 'will know for sure.'

M(ore confused than ever)

[bc]

I'm confused to. Weren't Custer's last words "too many Indians and not enough Chiefs" or something to that affect.

[clw]

Gee thanks, M. I'm never 'sure' of anything. This is a tough one in terms of contemporary usage, and to the best of my knowledge everything you said is correct.

Personally, I don't use the word 'chief', except to refer to men that the contempory Lakota refer to in that way. I know on Cheyenne River there is a council of chiefs that are completely separate from the elected tribal government and they are referred to as chiefs or naca which translates to 'an able voice in the community'. But I've never heard 'chief' used in reference to the old ones.

The word has simply become part of our shared language. But it came from the white side of the fence. And if not used carefully, it can cause some politically incorrect moments.

[biggordie]

My experience is that the word "chief" is best left unsaid in the company of contemporary First Nations people, especially as a form of address.

Gordie

[tatanka]

I see on the Cheyenne River website that the word "chief" is not used.

[bc]

I see at the crazyhorse.org website they refer to him as crazy horse and in one place they refer to him as Lokota leader. However in a couple places they refer to Lakota Chief Henry Standing Bear. There was a picture of Henry from 1948. I suspect he is long deceased now. But then I don't know what CH's official status was within the separate classifications such as band/tribe/Lakota Sioux/Sioux Nation/Native American.

I've also seen separate references to the term "War Chief" and I don't know if that has any particular signigicance among the NAs.

[clw]

Jul 18, 2008 10:38:14 GMT -6 bc said:

But then I don't know what CH's official status was within the separate classifications such as band/tribe/Lakota Sioux/Sioux Nation/Native American.

"Official status" is a white term that just doesn't apply. That's the root of the problem. We came up with words like 'chief' because we thought they were needed.

Crazy Horse was a 'warchief' or blotahunka meaning he was a leader of warriors in battle. All together different from the head of a family (tiwahe) or group of families (tiospaye). He was also made a shirtwearer -- an honor given to a generous man who would always put the welfare of the people first, making sure the elders had meat, the widows were provided for, etc. He lost that status because of the incident with No Water. You can see from all that how many types of leaders there were, but we just decided to call 'em all 'chiefs'.

I believe that the various names of family groups (the divisions within the Hunkpapa, Mnicoujou, etc.) are also of more interest to us now than they were in the buffalo days. They defined the family unit very differently then. And the family groups were constantly in a state of flux as leaders changed, feuds occured, and inlaws were acquired.