Yellow Hair: George Armstrong Custer
Yellow Hair: George Armstrong Custer is the Cheyenne and Arapaho account of Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer (l. 1839-1876), his interaction with the Southern Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle (l. c. 1803-1868), the Washita Massacre (27 November 1868), and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (24-26 June 1876). The piece is significant in presenting the Native American view of events.
A Cheyenne Artist's Depiction of the Battle of the Little Bighorn
Unknown Cheyenne Artist (Public Domain)
The account was related to scholars Alice Marriott and Carol K. Rachlin by Mary Little Bear Inkanish, John Stands-in-the-Timber, and John Fletcher of the Cheyenne and by Richard Pratt of the Arapaho. Although the account conforms in many aspects to the narrative accepted by scholars of American history, there are significant departures in detail. The phrase "history is written by the winners" is not quite accurate. Histories are also written by the losers in wars and conquests; they just never become as widely read as the dominant narrative of the victors.
Yellow Hair: George Armstrong Custer is a prime example of this. Here, the depiction of Custer is quite different from his heroic image as a defender of freedom, and this view has increasingly gained ground in the last 100 years. Today, Custer is a controversial figure as the Native American interpretation of the man has become more widely accepted by mainstream scholarship.
Cheyenne & Arapaho and US Accounts
Custer was a relative newcomer to the home of the Plains Indians, only arriving in the region in 1867 toward the end of Red Cloud's War (1866-1868). He served under Major General Winfield Scott Hancock (l. 1824-1886) in the wars against the Cheyenne and Arapaho and became known as an "Indian fighter." After his death at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in June 1876, his wife, Elizabeth Bacon "Libbie" Custer (l. 1842-1933), and his supporters elevated Custer to the role of martyr for the cause of civilization and defender of the United States against the 'savagery' of the Native peoples of North America. The Native American version of Custer and the major conflicts he was involved with contradicts this narrative.
Objective review of the so-called "Indian Wars" also challenges the accepted narrative of Custer as a hero and martyr, as his actions and those of others were in breach of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, which promised the Sioux their lands in perpetuity and the same for the Cheyenne and Arapaho. The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867 had made the same promises, and before that, the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 had, essentially, done the same, but none of these were honored by the US government.
In the following account, there are several details that differ from the better-known narratives. Here, it is said that Custer sent men to find Major Joel Eliot (l. 1840-1868) at the Washita Massacre when he broke from the main body of cavalry to attack the Arapaho camp, while the official report claims Custer never tried to find out where Eliot was. The failure to support Eliot is here given as the reason Custer was recalled to Washington while, in the more widely accepted narrative, it was to testify at a hearing involving monopolies and price-gouging at Western trading posts.
There are other details, some minor, in the account, but among the most interesting is the depiction of the death of the peace chief Black Kettle and his wife. According to the standard narrative, they were both killed while fleeing across the Washita River, shot in the back. Here, they are shown dying at their home, Black Kettle clutching the American flag, in a final defense of his village and way of life. The differing details of the Euro-American and Native American accounts are not only interesting in their own right, but reflect a truth regarding historical writing which, actually, can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia: what actually happened never matters as much as how what happened is remembered. Every narrative of the past - personal, communal, or national - serves a purpose in the present in defining oneself.
Continue reading...












