Wakinyan Zi Tiospaye: Context and Evidence in the Case of Yellow Thunder Camp

Copyright © 2021 by Helene E. Hagan. 833530

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

Rev. date: 08/13/2021

CONTENTS

Introduction

Part 1 The Yellow Thunder Camp Controversy

Part 2 Evidence: The Ethno-Historic Viewpoint

Part 3 Context: The Lakota Point Of View

Part 4 A New Paradigm

Conclusion

Afterword

Appendix I AAA

Appendix II UN Resolution 260

Appendix III 1903 Red Cloud Abdication Speech

Appendix IV Court order for US to pay Lakota Witnesses

Appendix V Document 627 F.supp 247 –Lower Court

Appendix VI Document 858 F. 2nd 404 –Eighth Circuit

Appendix VII The Bill Bradley Act

Bibliography

I - General Theory

II – North American Indians.

III – Oglala Lakota Culture.

IV – 1982-Present

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Entrance to Yellow Thunder Camp

2. Shari Means White Bull at YTC

3. Map showing location of camp

4. Artwork by Smokey White Bull (1983)

5. YTC Tipi

6. Brown Hat, author of Winter Count

7. Russell Means at Yellow Thunder Camp (1983)

8. Russell Means at home in the Black Hills

9. Helene Hagan working with elders on reservation

10. Charlotte Black Elk at home, Pepper Creek

11. Portrait of R.C. Means as an elder by Marty Two Bulls

12. Helene Hagan honoring Nicholas Black Elk, Harney Peak

13. Helene Hagan – Porcupine Community Center

14. Zona Fills The Pipe at home, working with Hagan

15. Author working on Treaty documents with Mr. UnderBaggage

16. Bob Coronato and Russell Means

17. Portrait of Russell Means in Smithsonian

18. Visiting petroglyphs in Black Hills with Grey Eagle Society

19. Black Hills photographed from space

20. Badlands – photo by Helene Hagan (1984)

21. Wakinyan Zi Tiospaye Artwork by Smokey White Bull

Entrance to Yellow Thunder Camp,

Artwork by Smokey Alex White Bull

INTRODUCTION

Shari Means White Bull with one of her twin daughters, and

Danny Means at Yellow Thunder Camp (1985)

I met Dennis Banks, founder of the American Indian Movement, and Chancellor of D. Q. University (¹), at the occasion of a speaking engagement which brought him to Stanford University in March 1981. A year later, I attended a conference at D.Q. during which I viewed the presentation of a documentary on Yellow Thunder Camp entitled Against the Wind. The film was introduced by Russell C. Means who, with his brother William A. Means, founded the Camp in the Black Hills of South Dakota on April 4, 1981.

I visited the Camp in June 1982, and on two subsequent occasions. I have followed its history since its inception, relying on printed documents obtained at the Black Hills Alliance Office in Rapid City, and copies of both the Rapid City Journal and Oyate Wicaho, the Dakota AIM organ of information. My last visit to Rapid City was to attend the last part of the proceedings of the trial of Yellow Thunder Camp in December 1982. The cases involved are CIV. #81-5131 (U.S. of America vs. William A. Means, et al.) and CIV. #81-5135 (William A. Means vs. James R. Mathers, et al.). The first case seeks the eviction of Lakota People from their encampment in the Black Hills, and the second charges the U.S. Government of violating the rights of Lakota People.

During the proceedings, as I listened to the testimony of the witnesses for the U.S. Government, and more particularly to the prolonged testimony of Dr. James A. Hanson, an ethno historian, I began to reflect that the ethno historic viewpoint sustained by Dr. Hanson ignored some of the recent anthropological concern with cultural context, and was antithetical to the emic approach of the discipline which probes the concepts, values and beliefs held by the individuals forming any ethnic group. After some preliminary research of relevant anthropological literature, I felt I could draft a paper which would not only point to the inadequacy of the historical method to address the problems at issue in the case, but would also contrast the Western, etic, scientific, and objective viewpoint to the personal, emic treatment of culture which attempts to elucidate the ethos by which a group lives.

From Paul Radin’s The Method and Theory of Ethnology (Radin, 1933:183-252), I adopted some guidelines for the position I wish to sustain. Radin argued that the type of objectivity looked for in physical sciences is impossible in culture history, except perhaps in the domain of material cultures. In science, we stand aside of the facts, but we are part of the cultural facts we describe in a very real way, he wrote. The moment we stand beside or above them, we do them injury; we transvaluate and make them facts of another order. In short they are reduced to facts of the physical world. (Radin, 1933:111-112). Radin also stresses that there are two requirements for authentic anthropological work. The first is a careful identification of one’s informants, and their qualifications. The second, which has not been respected as a whole, according to him, is the distinction between the record as obtained, and the discussion of it, granting others an opportunity to scrutinize the record as it was obtained. I have attempted to keep these requirements in mind, as I proceeded in my work.

The book purports to review the central issues relevant to the controversy, focusing on the issue of the sacredness of the Black Hills, the centrality of the Black Hills to Lakota spirituality, and the representativeness of Yellow Thunder Camp as a valid social or cultural unit. In Part I, entitled The Controversy, I define the term Yellow Thunder Camp not only as a geographic location but as a cultural community. I trace its history from the date of its foundation on April 4, 1981 to the time of the trial in December 1982 (I, 2). The history is also traced in the light of the issues involved. The statement made by Yellow Thunder Camp is presented under a list of separate issues in section 3 (i.e. self-determination, freedom of religion, and self-sufficiency). The last section of this presentation of the Camp is a brief outline of the larger issue of human rights, which has been taken to the international community by William A. Means himself, as a Non-Governmental Organization representative to the United Nations, the International Indian Treaty Council or I.I.T.C.

In part II, the ethno historic viewpoint is introduced. A survey of the literature on the origins and history of the Lakota People is offered in section 1, following the most reliable sources of general histories by Hyde (1956), Hassrick (1964) and Robinson (1904). Other insights into Plains culture and Lakota culture are summarized under sub-headings dealing with social organization, and ethnic boundaries. Ten questions constituting The First Interrogatories presented by the attorneys for the U.S. Government to the attorneys for Yellow Thunder Camp early in February 1982 are reviewed in the next section. Then, the testimony of James A. Hanson, ethno historian, and one of the key witnesses for the U.S. Government, is followed with appropriate notes from a number of sources, but particularly with reference to the James R. Walker Manuscripts edited by Raymond J. DeMallie (1980 and 1982). The fourth section of this portion of the book deals with the problem of historical reconstruction, and relates this issue to the preceding testimony and the work of documentation attending it, using principally Walker. In this part, the viewpoint presented in terms of an objective narrative, based on historical documents, is shown to be incomplete, highly selective and biased, and on the most crucial issue of the sacredness of the Black Hills, to reflect a highly prejudiced and inaccurate viewpoint which is not sustained by anthropological evidence.

The presentation then turns to Lakota beliefs, values and concepts in Part III. Here, a context is provided by exegetic material for Yellow Thunder Camp. This portion is not a legal rebuttal of the preceding testimony, nor a point-by-point response – this being the task of the attorneys for the camp as the case returns to court. The first section outlines the proposition expressed in Building a Community, a summary accompanying the Special Use Application furnished by the Camp to the U.S. Forest Service, stating that the Black Hills are central to the spirituality of the Lakota. Then, three spokesmen for the camp, Frank Fool’s Crow, William A. Means, and Russell C. Means address the meaning of the presence of Yellow Thunder Camp in the hills. This statement involves an understanding of Lakota spirituality: therefore, in the second section, Oglala Lakota religion is defined. No reply is made as such to the question of historicity presented in the preceding portion of the book, but a different perspective is introduced and elucidated, with particular reference to the work of William K. Powers (Powers, 1977), and with the help of a number of Lakota spokesmen: Black Elk (Neihardt, 1961; Brown, 1971); John Fire Lame Deer (Erdoes, 1972); Luther Standing Bear (1938, 1975); and Frank Fool’s Crow (Mails, 1979).

The final section is devoted to the meaning of wakan, which is central to the understanding of Lakota culture (Walker, 1982; Powers, 1977; Radin, 1914). In Appendix, as a reference relevant to this portion, Red Cloud’s Abdication Speech of July 4, 1903 is cited almost in its entirety. The relevance of the concept of wakan to Lakota spirituality as it is lived, here and now, by the members of Yellow Thunder Camp in the Black Hills, is brought out in the concluding portion of this presentation.

Part IV deals with theoretical considerations imbedded in the perspectives governing the two sides of the debate, and the debate within the field of anthropology. The historical method is reviewed from an anthropological perspective. Then, History and Science are contrasted, and situated in the debate. The scientific, objective method which is characteristic of Western research is then compared to the view which grants validity to indigenous concepts. At this point, a primal perspective is offered as an alternative to Western views. The notion of an emergent culture based on different conceptions of time and space, a different perception of what constitutes reality, is advanced. The place of AIM as one of the manifestations of this emergent culture, and on the spectrum of political and religious positions in Lakota culture, is discussed in the light of studies of revitalization or naturalistic movements (Wallace, 1956, 1966; Steinmetz, 1982). Section 4 states that Yellow Thunder Camp is at once a political and a religious ethnic group in keeping with the definition formulated by Fredrick Barth (Barth, 1969).

The conclusion of this analysis weighs the effectiveness of the evidence presented in the Second Part against the context provided by the emic approach which includes social, cultural and religious values of the Lakota People. The latter perspective is represented as more susceptible to grasp the meaning of the claim by Yellow Thunder Camp to the peaceful use of the Black Hills.

Furthermore, in the light of present-day problems faced by anthropologists, it is also suggested that a view which grants indigenous concerns a voice may be more valid. Anthropologists are entering an era where it is no longer feasible or wise to construct the social reality of the people they study in the light of their own Western premises. These premises are called into question by non-Western groups which are literate and may or may not testify to the relevance and validity of any anthropological research or findings.

PART I

THE YELLOW

THUNDER CAMP

CONTROVERSY

Artwork by Smokey White Bull, YTC resident, for Hagan’s original

Stanford University Thesis. (1983)

1. Definition of Yellow Thunder Camp.

On April 4, 1981, sixty individuals of the Lakota (Sioux) community led by William A. Means and Russell C. Means, American Indian Movement leaders, established a camp on 800 acres of National Forest land located in the Black Hills, 12 ½ miles south of Rapid City, South Dakota. On April 6, Matthew King, a Headman of the Oglala-Lakota Nation, filed claim to these 800 acres of U.S. Forest land with Pennington County, South Dakota officials, and with the U.S. Forest Service, after an inipi ² ceremony held at the site of the camp.

The Camp was named after Raymond Yellow Thunder, an Oglala man from Porcupine, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, in South Dakota. Yellow Thunder was kidnapped and beaten by two white men in Gordon, Nebraska in 1972. He was thrown naked into an American Legion dance, beaten for a second time, and then locked in a car trunk. His body was found two days later. His attackers, the Hare brothers, were charged with second-degree man-slaughter and released without bail. The American Indian Movement (AIM) helped the members of the bereaved family investigate the death. Severt Young Bear, nephew of the deceased, stated in an interview³:

His three sisters went to the tribal government, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and to private attorneys for help. They wouldn’t let them see the body; they wouldn’t let them see the autopsy and sealed the coffin when they brought it back. (After Wounded Knee, Indians seek Future in Old Ways, Southern Illinoisan, July 21, 1982).

AIM organized and led 1,000 Oglala demonstrators who, on March 6, 1972, marched in Gordon for two days, demanding justice in the Yellow Thunder case. In the interview quoted above, Russell Means was present in the classroom and remarked that it was that murder which brought AIM to the reservation and signaled the moment when our people—the Lakota People—got off their knees and stood up for their rights.

The term Yellow Thunder Camp when used in this book, will refer to the cultural and religious community which settled on those 800 acres of land near Lake Victoria, now re-named Lake Lamont (see Map 1). This community is guided by the teachings of Lakota Oral Tradition, which will be detailed in Part III, section 3 of this book. The precise meanings of what constitutes the Lakota-Dakota Tradition, and who makes up the Oglala Nation or Lakota Nation will be also addressed in the context of the historical presentation of the Oglala Lakota People in Part II, section 2..

The Lakota equivalent of community is tiospaye. (ti: to dwell and ospaye: a company). Tiospaye has been defined in a number of ways, as a band, a division of a tribe, a community (Buechel, 1970:491), as a lodge group, a group that lives together (DeMallie, 1971:110), they that live together (Feraca, 1966:1), a camp (Howard, 1966:3). A longer definition is attempted by Powers (Powers, 1977:34): "Tiospaye has been regarded by most authors as the smallest socio-political unit which operates under one or more chiefs throughout most of the year." Wakinyan Zi Tiospaye (Yellow Thunder Camp) operates under Russell C. Means, or Williams A. Means, under Shari Means (Russell’s daughter) and since her marriage in June 1982 also under Smokey White Bull. This community concept is not a revival of an old form, but a continuation of a mode of life which has persisted on the reservation, whether it was known or unknown to officials. It was noted by Feraca:

Despite the ill effects of the allotment systems and ongoing deculturation, the Oglala have tenaciously held to the modified form of the traditional band. Called communities by Whites, the Lakota equivalent is still tiospaye. These groups continue to maintain their structure and identity despite what might be regarded as overwhelming odds to their disfavor…the identity and existence of many was unknown except to day school teachers and a few field workers. (Feraca, 1966:6).

The decision to create Yellow Thunder Camp had its origin, as far as I could gather, from a speech by Russell Means to a Porcupine assembly on September 28, 1982, as follows:

"Again in 1981, because of a ceremony here in Porcupine, on the advice of the spirits, we decided to go—go home, to Yellow Thunder Camp…Prior to April 4, 1981, AIM in South Dakota—we never talked about the Treaty to the Press or to anyone…We never came with our version of how we felt. But spiritually it all came together, our praying for a self-sufficient community, with no alcohol and no dope, that we wanted for Pine Ridge, now in the Black Hills. And so, the Dakota AIM—we decided to make our statement to the world about our Treaty ⁴ and our hopes for our children, and our concern for the old people, that the Dakota People are the most beautiful people on earth…In our own district, we always did live, we always lived community by community. It was community by community, tiospaye by tiospaye."

The decision to go to the Black Hills was made on the advice of the spirits. It fulfills a strong desire for self-sufficiency, a way of life not regulated by government agencies. It is a step away from ghetto existence to another way with prohibition on violence, and proscription of drugs: there is a no weapons, no drugs, no alcohol sign posted at the entrance of the camp. This prohibition is characteristic of all the AIM meetings which I have personally attended.

Yellow Thunder Camp represents an old form of community life which has persisted under the least auspicious circumstances of reservation life. It is transplanted or rather returned to an ancestral setting of open woods, with clean air and fresh water: it represents an alternative to the bleak conditions of life imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

2. The History of the Controversy.

a. The Special Use Application. On April 22, 1981, the Camp filed a Special Use Application (hereafter referred to as the Application) to build permanent structures to be used for religious, educational and residential purposes. In this Application, William Means and the attorneys for the Camp cited the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute of 1897 allowing those living in the vicinity of National Forest lands to establish and maintain schools and churches (16 USC 479 et seq.), and the 1978 Indian Freedom of Religion Act which guarantees Native American people access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonies and traditional rites. This Act, Public Law 95-341, states:

"That henceforth it shall be the policy of the