Read on Twitter
Day 184 of reading an article on Očhéthi Šakówiŋ Studies everyday:
Bruce M. White, “A Mouthful of Grass.” In ed. Rhoda R. Gilman, Ringing in the Wilderness: Selections from the North Country Anvil. Duluth, MN: Holy Cow! Press, 1996, 259-67.
Bruce M. White, “A Mouthful of Grass.” In ed. Rhoda R. Gilman, Ringing in the Wilderness: Selections from the North Country Anvil. Duluth, MN: Holy Cow! Press, 1996, 259-67.
Analyzes the well-known story of Andrew Myrick, a white trader who refused to provide food to the desperate Dakota on credit, telling them instead “they can eat grass, or their own dung.” Myrick was 1 of the 1st victims of the US-Dakota War, found with grass stuffed in his mouth.
Some have suggested that this statement was a significant cause leading to the war. Some historians have tried, unsuccessfully, to disprove the incident, and have downplayed its significance. White suggests the incident is significant in a different way.
By the time of the US-Dakota War in 1862, there had been 2 centuries of peaceful trade between Indians and fur traders, but the fur trade was breaking down by the 1820s. Earlier fur traders understood Indian cultures, economic & kinships systems and embedded themselves into them.
But by the 1800s, men like Myrick were not seeking long-term trade and kinship relations, they were looking to make a quick buck. Myrick wasn’t paid by Indians, he was paid directly by the government out of Dakota annuities and so didn’t care about them.
Men like Myrick knew the trade was ending and just wanted to make money without taking the time to understand Dakota economic systems or related kinship obligations. White then breaks down Myrick’s infamous insult. By saying “let them eat grass” he was comparing them to animals.
In essence, Myrick was telling the Dakota that he didn’t believe they were human. But in denying the Dakota their humanity, he denied his own humanity in the eyes of the Dakota. From their perspective, anyone who would act in such away, letting people starve, was not human.
White isn’t analyzing the statement as part of the US-Dakota War or the immediate lead up to it. Instead, he is analyzing the statement itself, and how it demonstrates a long change in the relationship between the Dakota and white Americans, and how it declined over time.
White suggests we not look at the incident as some significant moment in the US-Dakota War, but it held significance nonetheless. White says the statement summarizes Midwestern history—it describes the end of centuries of peaceful trade and alludes to the coming wars with whites.
