Both letters address similar issues among the Indian population residing in various reservations in the United States during the early 1900s. Regardless, each writer has different views and descriptions of the target population’s characteristics, culture, lifestyle, and mode of dressing. In the first letter, the commissioner argues that many Indians continued to wear long hair, traditional clothes, and painted faces despite set rules and policies dictating otherwise. Further, the commissioner objects to dances, face painting, and feasts, regarding them as subterfuges used to cover immoral vices, while painting caused blindness among members of the native community. Therefore, he urges the superintendent to govern the people towards a civilized community.
However, the superintendent’s response contradicts the commissioners’ views about the natives. According to the Californian superintendent, people in his reservation adhered to all policies. The natives in the reservation dressed in modern attires and kept short hair, apart from a few older men who had little influence and impact on the native’s way of life. Further, the community members stopped holding dances, ceremonies, and feasts after the government directive disapproving of the culture. The superintendent’s views of the feast and ceremonies contradict the opinion of the commissioner. He states that the dances are not degrading or immoral, and the Indians used them for amusement, just like white men may have a good time with a glass of whiskey and gambling. Therefore, it was unfair to prohibit the natives’ source of leisure and suggest permitting them to hold dances under the supervision of police officers to maintain order.
The contradicting views from the two sources seem to suggest opposing perspectives between individuals working with the natives directly and those governing from the outside. The commissioner’s views are based on the overall disposition of the native community regardless of individual reservation areas and in-depth knowledge of individual communities. However, the superintendent’s response comes from direct and regular interaction with the natives from his reservation area, which confirms their adherence to policies despite the commissioner’s allegations. Thus, the two sources are insufficient to draw an overall and final interpretation of those working with native Indian communities in America and the reservation system. Although the government may try to impose the same rules, each superintendent has a different report from their reservation and can make certain allowances to the reservation system, such as permitting dances under security.
References
Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1902). A letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (the “long hair” letter) about the way in which Indian people should dress and act, 1902. Digital public library of America. Web.
Hoopa Valley Agency (California) Superintendent (1902). A response to the “long hair” letter from the Hoopa Valley Indian Agency, 1902. Digital public library of America. Web.