At the Buffalo Bill Museum
Jane Tomkins relates her visit to the Buffalo Bill museum as a confusing thing. She delves into the nature of Buffalo Bill, into the nature of the settling of the west. It is hard, at first, to see whether she is in the school of thought that has somewhat hastily concluded that the European settlers have won the west and opened it to the best of civilization, or whether she is of the school of thought that claims that the settlement of the west was the unjust thievery of land from native americans. She slowly comes to the conclusion that, while the genocide of the natives was wrong, that is was not the pressure of the American system, but the success of reformers like Buffalo Bill, the individual actions that made the west happen the way it did.
What this essay does is complicated. Firstly, it shows the nature of Indian Removal and genocide, which is an inherently pro-conformist thing, to take away the land and freedom of a group, because they are different and because it would bring to those more similar better opportunities, is the act of a society in defense of its current state. But, it complicates that, by saying that Buffalo Bill acted on his own volition, that he caused America to shift in the direction of Indian removal. It shows Buffalo Bill as a successful rebel against the status quo. The American System did not crush Buffalo Bill, despite his desire to change the policy of the US towards its indigenous people. So, the essay both proves and disproves the point, but the stronger theme is the fact that Buffalo Bill’s individualism crushed out the individualism of the natives. This is antithetical to the American desire to end rebellion, and makes the case that the US does not always quash reformers.
But, Buffalo Bill was a part of an idea that echoed throughout America. The idea of conquering all lands west, and bringing it under one unified and homogeneous state, a trend known as Manifest Destiny, is quite obvious throughout American history.
What this essay does is complicated. Firstly, it shows the nature of Indian Removal and genocide, which is an inherently pro-conformist thing, to take away the land and freedom of a group, because they are different and because it would bring to those more similar better opportunities, is the act of a society in defense of its current state. But, it complicates that, by saying that Buffalo Bill acted on his own volition, that he caused America to shift in the direction of Indian removal. It shows Buffalo Bill as a successful rebel against the status quo. The American System did not crush Buffalo Bill, despite his desire to change the policy of the US towards its indigenous people. So, the essay both proves and disproves the point, but the stronger theme is the fact that Buffalo Bill’s individualism crushed out the individualism of the natives. This is antithetical to the American desire to end rebellion, and makes the case that the US does not always quash reformers.
But, Buffalo Bill was a part of an idea that echoed throughout America. The idea of conquering all lands west, and bringing it under one unified and homogeneous state, a trend known as Manifest Destiny, is quite obvious throughout American history.