crazy_horse_final

George Mason University
Returning to Them in Stone
History 300-003: The American West
9 May 2007
Stephanie C. Wolfe
2
“We have made your sacred Black Hills into one vast Disneyland,” said Sioux
medicine man Lame Deer regarding Mount Rushmore’s meaning to white men. “And
after we did all this we carved up the mountain, the dwelling place of your spirits, and put
our four gleaming white faces here. We are the conquerors.” He continued, “They could
as well have carved this mountain into a huge cavalry boot standing on a dead Indian.”1
Emotions run high regarding Mount Rushmore: it is either a great monument embodying
American ideals or a giant piece of kitsch desecrating sacred lands.2 Ever since its
inception, Mount Rushmore and its four busts have incited anger from American
Indians. Every memory of oppression seemed to be mocked and carved in stone. Many
believed America needed a new monument that would honor an American Indian hero.
Created as a reaction to Mount Rushmore, the Crazy Horse Memorial stands as a
successful monument to the American Indian.
The Crazy Horse Memorial was not the first attempt to commemorate American
Indians. In the late nineteenth century, the influx of European immigrants sparked
nationalist feeling. These feelings resulted in a desire by those descended from earlier
European immigrants to portray American Indians as “first Americans” and “ancestors to
the nation.”3 White American views of the American Indian shifted from the “savage” to
the “good” Indian4 and in 1913, Wanamaker Department Store announced a plan to
erect a statue of an Indian in New York Harbor, “heroic in size,” to welcome “all those
coming to this land of liberty and freedom, recognizing the welcome which the Red Man
1
Albert Boime, “Patriarchy Fixed in Stone: Gutzon Borglum’s Mount Rushmore.”
American Art, v. 5. n1-2 (Winter-Spring 1991), p. 157. [database on-line]; available from.
2
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 150.
3
Alan Trachtenberg, preface to Shades of Hiawatha: Staging Indians, Making Americans, 18801930, (New York, Hill and Wang, 2004), p. xxii.
4
Trachtenberg, Hiawatha, p. xxiii.
3
gave to the White Man when our forefathers first came to these shores.”5 On 22 February
1913, the project broke ground in a ceremony complete with Native Americans in
traditional dress, digging with the shoulder bone of a buffalo.6 Despite the failure of the
project, other attempts to commemorate American Indians proliferated, including the
buffalo nickel. Mounted by the conquerors, these white attempts to honor “first
Americans” lacked genuine respect. As Winthrop Jordan wrote in White Over Black
regarding the buffalo nickel, the Indian symbolized the American experience, and by
putting the face of an American Indian on the nickel, the coin emphasized the conquest
of wilderness through victory over American Indians.7 For example, although the plans
for the Wanamaker Indian Monument failed, the planners seemed oblivious to the
inappropriate nature of having one of the warriors vanquished by earlier Europeans
reach out to welcome yet more Europeans, even as tribal land shrunk to accommodate
the influx.
5
Alan Trachtenberg, Shades of Hiawatha: Staging Indians, Making Americans, 1880-1930, (New
York, Hill and Wang, 2004), p. 258.
6
Trachtenberg, Hiawatha p. 256-257.
7
Winthrop Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro. 1550-1812.
(Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1968), quoted in Alan Trachtenberg,
Shades of Hiawatha: Staging Indians, Making Americans, 1880-1930, (New York, Hill and
Wang, 2004), p. 3
4
Mount Rushmore also arose during an era of immigration as a result of strong
nationalist sentiment, but the “vanishing Indian” of the previous commemorations is
nowhere to be found in Gutzon Borglum’s “Shrine to Democracy.” Borglum, the
sculptor of Mount Rushmore, worshipped the white and male aspect of America.8 His
works prior to Mount Rushmore exhibited his obsession with national conquest. For the
Columbian Exposition of 1893, he began a painting called Noche Triste or The Conquest of
Mexico, portraying Cortez’s battle against the Aztecs.9 This preoccupation with
expansionism appeared again in his choices of presidents for Mount Rushmore, of whom
he considered Thomas Jefferson the most important because of his purchase of Louisiana
Territory and the creation of the Lewis and Clarke expedition.10 All four presidents:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt,
played instrumental roles in maintaining or expanding territory.11 Borglum’s
qualifications for inclusion valued the men who “founded, defended, and expanded the
United States.”12 Of course, the idea of honoring the expansion of U.S. territory left out
the forceful displacement of American Indians.13 In fact, one of the mountain’s subjects,
Theodore Roosevelt, said “the rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land
lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him.”14
8
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 148.
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 155
10
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 150.
11
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 150-151
12
Gutzon Borglum, quoted in Martha E. Geores, Common Ground: The Struggle for Ownership
of the Black Hills National Forest, (Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), p. 106
13
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 150
14
Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West: The Spread of English-Speaking Peoples. 4 Vols.
(New York, Putnam, 1889-1896), 61-62, quoted in Alan Trachtenberg, Shades of Hiawatha:
Staging Indians, Making Americans, 1880-1930, (New York, Hill and Wang, 2004), p. xxiv.
9
5
Mount Rushmore honored more than just Manifest Destiny. Borglum’s
gargantuan sculpture also celebrated whiteness. Construction began in an era that
witnessed increasing intolerance of all those not white, Protestant, and native-born. The
same president who signed the bill establishing the Mount Rushmore National Memorial
Commission also signed the National Origin Act in 1924 that severely limited
immigration. He shared Borglum’s admiration of Jefferson as well saying that “in him,
likewise, was embodied the spirit of American expansion.”15 The post-World War I era in
which the project began also saw the Klan at its peak.16 Even the sculptor found himself
caught up in this racism. Borglum held membership in the Ku Klux Klan, and had
planned a monument to the confederacy including a Klan altar in its design. His
attraction to the Klan was so strong that he wished to elect a Klansman as the President
of the United States.17 In addition to his membership in the Klan, one hero that he had
portrayed in an earlier sculpture embodied racism directed at American Indians. In
Washington, D.C., Borglum had sculpted an equestrian statue portraying General Philip
Sheridan, who famously said, “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.”18 And yet,
the National Park Service’s website informs visitors “all the cultures that make up the
fabric of this country are represented by the memorial and surrounding Black Hills.”19
Three presidents took part in the project. President Coolidge, who at the end of
his presidency signed the bill establishing the Mount Rushmore National Memorial
Commission, declared the location significant as a place “which probably no white man
15
Gilbert C. Fite, Mount Rushmore, (Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 1952), p.
4
16
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 152.
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 165.
18
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 156.
19
“History and Culture,” Mount Rushmore.19 November 2006. National Park Service,
<http://www.nps.gov/moru/historyculture/index.htm> (22 April 2007)
17
6
had ever beheld in the days of Washington, in territory acquired by the action of
Jefferson.” This view asserted “the white man’s grasp on the land.” 20. Herbert Hoover,
who had to organize the commission, led the same administration that denied aid to the
20
President Calvin Coolidge quoted in Rex Alan Smith, The Carving of Mount Rushmore,
(New York, Abbeville Press, 1985), p. 152-153 quoted in Albert Boime, “Patriarchy Fixed
in Stone: Gutzon Borglum’s Mount Rushmore.” American Art, v. 5. n1-2 (Winter-Spring
1991), p. 157. [database on-line]; available from JSTOR.
Pine Ride South Dakota Sioux Reservation during the Great Depression.21 Hoover’s
successor, Franklin Roosevelt, saw the project as a massive public works project to create
jobs and fuel his New Deal. Although the project began coincident with Sioux litigation
for compensation for the loss of the Black Hills, this claim was trampled by the nationalist
goals of Mount Rushmore.
To understand the outrage of the Sioux, the background of the location chosen
for Mount Rushmore must be understood. The state historian of South Dakota, Doane
Robinson, and U.S. Senator Peter Norbeck decided that the national scenery of the Black
Hills was not enough to draw tourists.22 Robinson believed in the creation of something
extraordinary in order to impress tourists, and the idea for a monument carved out of the
natural scenery was born.23 Robinson at first conceived the idea of carving “notable
Sioux.” Later, he wrote, “I can see all the heroes of the west peering out from them;
Lewis and Clark, Fremont, Jed Smith, Bridger, Sa-kaka-wea [Sacagawea], Redcloud, and
in an equestrian statue, Cody and the overland mail.” 24Everything about the location
chosen was a slap in the face to America’s first peoples. The Sioux held the Black Hills so
sacred that no one lived there; they used the area solely for prayer and meditation,
believing that the Great Spirit lived there25 The Treaty of 1868 promised ownership of an
area of forty-one thousand square miles encompassing the Black Hills to the Sioux.26
Not only was this treaty violated by General George Armstrong Custer’s official
expedition into the region in 1874 and the creation of an open-access gold mine in 1875,
21
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 158-159.
Geores, Common Ground, p. 105
23
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 149.
24
Fite, Mount Rushmore, p. 6
25
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 156, Geores, Common Ground, p. 30.
26
Geores, Common Ground, p. 4.
22
8
the forest reverted to government ownership in 1897.27 Adding insult to injury, this area
included two parks named for men who massacred Sioux women and children: Harney
National Forest and Custer State Park.28 Mount Rushmore sprung up between these two
places. The government took the land through breaking a treaty, named parts of it after
hated enemies, and worse, the pale faces of conquerors were to be carved in god-like
proportions out of the sacred lands.
Lame Deer said the monument made white tourists feel powerful and think, “we
are white, and we made this, and what we want we get, and nothing can stop us.”29
Borglum illustrated this through his orchestration of the dedication ceremony on 1
October 1925 that included a theme of conquest, raising and lowering flags to illustrate
the hands through which the Black Hills had passed.30 American Indians did not hesitate
to show their protests in dramatic and nonverbal ways, such as forming human chains to
urinate on the noses of the stone-faced presidents, or attempting to pour red paint on the
faces. Sioux protestors also demonstrated on the heads during the summers of 1970,
1972, and 1973.31
From the very beginning of the planning of the Mount Rushmore project, there
was a desire, both from within the American Indian community and outside it, to honor
American Indians, and one hero in particular: Crazy Horse, who had fought fiercely to
defend the Black Hills. Soldiers assassinated Crazy Horse when he visited a fort to
negotiate a treaty. Chief Henry Standing Bear, maternal cousin to Crazy Horse and one
of the leaders of the Lakota Sioux, would later spearhead the movement for the Crazy
27
Geores, Common Ground, pp. 33, 34, 40.
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 156.
29
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 157.
30
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 155.
31
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 157.
28
9
Horse Memorial. He may have gotten the idea for a memorial from his half-brother,
Luther, who first wrote about the idea around the time carving of Mount Rushmore was
taking place, although the idea of creating a memorial to the American Indian had been
discussed before.32 Standing Bear felt that since Mount Rushmore was being carved into
sacred Sioux lands, the Sioux should be honored too. In December 1931, he wrote a
letter to Borglum, lobbying him to have Crazy Horse carved on Mount Rushmore.
“Would it not be most appropriate to have the face of the great Crazy Horse placed there
too…He is deserving of honor. I do not, of course, know how you feel about the matter
but it does appear as a most fitting tribute to pay to a great American.”33 Chief James
Red Cloud also wrote Borglum letters making a similar request that a great Sioux chief be
included in the carvings,34 as did Chief Martin Red Bear, who wrote “I would like to have
a talk with you regarding the monument of Chief Crazy Horse to be erected among the
next of the Pres. On Mt. Rushmore.” 35Obviously Borglum denied this request, claiming
to be powerless. P.E. Byrne, an author who had criticized treatment of American Indians,
wrote in 1927 requesting Borglum to create a memorial to “The Indian,” a “national
monument worthy of the Indian warrior at his best, and of America’s contribution to the
story and the glory of the vanquished.”36 In writing back to Byrne, Borglum responded,
“[the Indian] has done nothing himself, and he became great only when he was fighting
32
John Swanson, “Mato Najen: Chief Henry Standing Bear,” Mountains of History, <
http://www.tahbh.org/content/docs/MatoNajen.pdf>, 13 March 2007. p. 385, 388.
33
Chief Henry Standing Bear to Gutzon Borglum, 4 December 1931, Gutzon Borglum
Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress quoted in Albert Boime, “Patriarchy
Fixed in Stone: Gutzon Borglum’s Mount Rushmore.” American Art, v. 5. n1-2 (WinterSpring 1991), p. 161. [database on-line]; available from JSTOR.
34
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 161.
35
Chief Martin Red Bear to Gutzon Borglum, 16 May 1938, Gutzon Borglum Papers,
Manuscript Division, Library of Congress
36
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 162.
10
to resist civilization.”37 Borglum’s response demonstrates that even had he possessed the
power to include Crazy Horse or another Sioux leader on Mount Rushmore, he did not
possess the inclination.
Chief Henry Standing Bear felt that only the family could appropriately undertake
a memorial to Crazy Horse, as Sioux tradition dictated. The family lacked sculptors and
a person able to handle the politics it would take to complete the project, not to mention
raise the funds needed for such an undertaking.38 His appeals to Borglum having failed,
Standing Bear experienced a case of sour grapes, writing to Borglum in 1937, “There was
a proposition that heads of 4 certain chiefs to be carve on rocks in the Black Hills and that
you are back of this proposition. This is in opposition to some plans Indians and leading
chiefs have and it is hope that you kindly not to take any step until certain chiefs have a
talk with you.”39 Standing Bear the turned to a sculptor who had worked under Borglum
on Mount Rushmore,40 and had a successful sculpting career in his own right. Standing
Bear had been impressed by Ziolkowski’s prize-winning sculpture of Padarewski at the
World’s Fair41 and wrote to Ziolkowski in 1939 saying, “We do not believe Borglum is the
only living man that can do that kind of work.”42 Upon finding out that Ziolkowski was
born thirty-one years to the day after Crazy Horse had died, the Sioux believed they had
found an omen that Ziolkowski was destined to create this monument. The scale models
37
P.E. Byrne to Borglum, 10 August 1927; Borglum to Byrne, 30 November 1927,
Gutzon Borglum Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress quoted in Albert
Boime, “Patriarchy Fixed in Stone: Gutzon Borglum’s Mount Rushmore.” American Art, v.
5. n1-2 (Winter-Spring 1991), p. 162. [database on-line]; available from JSTOR.
38
Swanson, “Mato Najen,” p. 389.
39
Chief Henry Standing Bear to Gutzon Borglum, 4 November 1937, Gutzon Borglum
Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
40
Robb DeWall, A Dream in Progress, 1998, np.
41
DeWall, Dream in Progress
42
Swanson, “Mato Najen,” p. 389.
11
Ziolkowski presented only reinforced this feeling, portraying Crazy Horse wearing a
protective stone talisman on his year, just as the actual man had done and despite the lack
of photographs of the Sioux hero. To the Sioux, Korczak Ziolkowski had come to fulfill
Crazy Horse’s prophecy that he “would return to them in the stone.”43 Standing Bear
also stressed the importance of this project to Ziolkowski by saying, “We want the white
man to know that the red man has his heroes too.”44
Ziolkowski, who felt extremely honored to have been asked, spent three weeks in
1940 discussing the project with Standing Bear, learning about traditions, and of course,
learning about Crazy Horse.45 The project unfortunately would be delayed, for World
War II had already begun, and Ziolkowski would serve in the war for four years. During
this time, he considered the Sioux chief’s request, and when he returned, he had decided
to devote the rest of his life to the cause, even turning down invitations to build war
memorials in Europe.46 This decision to undertake the carving of Thunderhead
Mountain was a decision almost as monumental as the project itself. Ziolkowski would
spend the next thirty-four years of his life blasting and carving the enormous sculpture.
His work on the monument only concluded with his death at the age of seventy-four.
In the beginning, he worked utterly alone, climbing steep ladders and hauling up
heavy equipment, then making the treacherous climb back down the mountain when his
compressors failed.47 His motivations are a direct contrast to those that caused Gutzon
Borglum to undertake Mount Rushmore. Borglum undertook Mount Rushmore because
43
Robb DeWall, Carving a Dream, (South Dakota: Korczak’s Heritage, Inc., 1992), np.
Swanson, “Mato Najen,” p. 385.
45
Swanson, “Mato Najen,” p. 389.
46
DeWall, Carving
47
DeWall, Carving
44
12
of his desire to honor the greatness of American conquest and imperialism.48 Korczak
Ziolkowski undertook Crazy Horse because after reading the history of American Indians
suffering he decided that he wanted to devote his life to honoring their trials. According
to his daughter Monique Ziolkowski-Howe, who grew up on the mountain and continues
to work on the memorial, Ziolkowski had always wanted to “do something for
somebody.”49 His widow Ruth explained that Korczak used to say, “I will give the few
remaining Indians a little pride.”50 Korczak Ziolkowski possessed an understanding of
what it meant for Standing Bear to ask a man not only outside of Crazy Horse’s family
and tribe to create this monument but a man completely outside of the culture. “It was
difficult for me to understand at first,” he said, “it seems with the Indians only a relative
of a great man has the right to honor that man or build a memorial to him. Other people
who are not relatives have no right to honor that man because somehow those people
might have evil motives, want to get something out of it. It is rather beautiful in a way.”51
Those feelings about outsiders honoring the dead are part of the reason that
Ziolkowski refused public funds, twice turning down ten million dollars in federal
funding.52 This philosophy has continued, as the family insisted that the project should
be funded privately, through donations and admissions. Ruth Ziolkowski, Korczak’s
widow, set the example by repeatedly refusing to cash the Federal paycheck of one dollar
48
Boime, “Patriarchy,” p. 50.
Monique Ziolkowski-Howe, interview by author, telephone interview, Reston, VA, 2
April 2007
50
James Brooke, “Crazy Horse Is Rising In the Black Hills Again,” New York Times (New
York), 29 June 1997: pg. 1.16 [database on-line]. Accessed through ProQuest on 26 April
2007.
51
Swanson, “Mato Najen,” p. 390.
52
DeWall, Carving
49
13
per year that she receives as Crazy Horse’s postmistress.53 It also seemed wrong to accept
financing for a project honoring a man assassinated by the very government providing
the financing, the same government who had broken the treaty Crazy Horse had tried to
enforce. Ziolkowski feared as well that if the project became government funded, the
project might never see completion, and the government would neglect the educational
and cultural goals planned for the monument.54 Ziolkowski instead decided to raise the
money himself, eventually raising more than four million dollars to fund the project
during his thirty-four years of work.55
The Crazy Horse monument was born of Gutzon Borglum’s refusal to honor
Crazy Horse or any other Sioux hero, and the scale of the finished monument thumbs its
nose at the four heads of Borglum’s Mount Rushmore. The eye of the horse upon which
Crazy Horse will sit is to be eighteen feet wide and sixteen feet high.56 The head alone is
twenty-two stories high, large enough to hold all of Mount Rushmore. It will be the
world’s largest sculpture to date when completed.57 All this was part of Ziolkowski’s
vision, but there is more. Part of why he undertook the project was because he envisioned
more than just a mountain carving. It would be a place to think and to learn, so plans
included the building of a museum and a university for American Indian students.58 His
belief in the importance of these other elements has been passed down to his daughter
Monique, who believes that the mountain is the smallest part of the project despite its
53
Brooke, “Crazy Horse Is Rising” p. 1.16
DeWall, Carving
55
“Korczak Ziolkowski, Sculptor Who Portrayed Crazy Horse,” New York Times, 22
October 1982, p. B10, [database on-line]. Accessed through ProQuest Historical
Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003)
56
“Sculptor,” New York Times
57
DeWall, Carving
58
DeWall, Carving
54
14
immense scale.59 Ziolkowski did have to make compromises: he had originally wanted the
monument to be carved in the Wyoming Tetons, but because of the proximity of Mount
Rushmore, the Sioux chose a 600-fooot high mountain in the Black Hills.60 This choice
along with the monument itself, created a powerful bit of symbolism. Once, in derogatory
and mocking tones, a white man asked Crazy Horse, “Where are your lands now?” The
great Sioux chieftain replied, “My lands are where my dead lie buried.” When the
sculpture is completed, it will depict Crazy Horse astride a horse, one arm gesturing to
those buried dead.
1/34th scale model with the actual carving in the background
59
60
Ziolkowski-Howe, interview
DeWall, Carving
15
As moving as some people may find this monument, for others in the American
Indian community, it possesses some of the same faults as Mount Rushmore. Lame Deer,
who voiced the earlier stated objections to Mount Rushmore, also protested the carving
of the Crazy Horse memorial for many of the same reasons, including its location in the
sacred Black Hills. These objections have not faded over the years. The president of the
Oglala Sioux Tribal Council in Pine Ridge, John Yellow Bird Steele, supported the
“overall concept,” but also said “how can we tear up a mountain for a statue?” Gregg
Bourland, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council, echoed this sentiment.
“You don’t need to carve up a whole mountain to remember these things about him. You
can look at a beautiful sunset, watch a bird fly or look at a cloud drift by to remember the
spirit of Crazy Horse.” Ruth Ziolkowski points out “it was the Indians who chose Crazy
Horse. It was the Indians who asked Korczak to carve the mountain.”61
Crazy Horse and Mount Rushmore do share some fundamental characteristics
beside their location in the Black Hills. Both honor parts of America’s history deeply
rooted in the West: Mount Rushmore venerates westward expansion, while the Crazy
Horse Memorial pays homage to a great western Indian. Both are tourist destinations for
structural elements other than the natural features of the Black Hills. Like Mount
Rushmore, Crazy Horse has sparked debate within the American Indian community, and
like Mount Rushmore, Crazy Horse is sculpture not only “writ large,” but writ on the
scale of giants.
Crazy Horse is set apart by a variety of factors. Mount Rushmore omits the
vanquished people who are an integral part of America and the American West. By this
61
Brooke, “Crazy Horse Is Rising” p. 1.16
16
omission, the victory over them is emphasized.62 Crazy Horse, instead, celebrates those
same people and through its museum and special events, celebrates the continuing Lakota
Sioux culture, as well as the cultural traditions of other American Indian tribes. It
promotes education and cultural traditions as well as trade.
Ziolkowski’s rendering of the finished monument and complex
Crazy Horse set itself apart from other monuments to the American Indian as
well, by being the first major commemoration commissioned by American Indians.
Unlike the Buffalo Nickel and the Wanamaker Indian, Crazy Horse does not depict a
vanishing, “good” Indian or a “noble savage.” Crazy Horse instead portrayed a warrior
who fiercely defended his people and became a great hero to his people. It went beyond
just being a memorial to a vanishing race, and included a museum to honor their past
and a university and medical center to promote their future. Monique Ziolkowski-Howe
62
Boime, “Patriarchy” p. 162.
17
believes that the monument fulfills Standing Bear’s vision.63 The very fact that it fulfills
the dream of an American Indian man and his people emphasizes the success of the
monument.
Gutzon Borglum’s refusal to honor America’s first inhabitants in Mount
Rushmore inspired a critical reaction resulting in the enormous undertaking of carving
Crazy Horse. In turn, the monument is the first successful commemoration of the
American Indian due to its background and the integrity of its artistic process.
63
Ziolkowski-Howe, interview
Map showing location of Crazy Horse in relation to other key tourist areas of the Black
Hills (from Crazy Horse Memorial Brochure)
19
Mount Rushmore
20
Works Cited
Boime, Albert, “Patriarchy Fixed in Stone: Gutzon Borglum’s Mount Rushmore.”
American Art, v. 5. n1-2 (Winter-Spring 1991), [database on-line]; accessed through
JSTOR.
Brooke, James, “Crazy Horse Is Rising In the Black Hills Again,” New York Times (New
York), 29 June 1997: [database on-line]; Accessed through ProQuest on 26 April
2007.
DeWall, Robert, Carving a Dream, (South Dakota, Korczak’s Heritage, Inc., 1992)
DeWall, Robert, A Dream in Progress, (South Dakota, Korczak’s Heritage, Inc., 1998)
Fite, Gilbert, Mount Rushmore, (Oklahoma, Oklahoma University Press, 1952)
Geores, Martha, Common Ground: The Struggle for Ownership of the Black Hills National Forest,
(Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 1996)
Gutzon Borglum Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress
“Korczak Ziolkowski, Sculptor Who Portrayed Crazy Horse,” New York Times, 22
October 1982, [database on-line]. Accessed through ProQuest Historical Newspapers
The New York Times (1851-2003)
“History and Culture,” Mount Rushmore. 19 November 2006, National Park Service,
<http://www.nps.gov/moru/historyculture/index.htm>.
Swanson, John, “Mato Najen: Chief Henry Standing Bear,” Mountains of History,
<http://www.tahbh.org/content/docs/MatoNajen.pdf>, 13 March 2007.
Trachtenberg, Alan, Shades of Hiawatha: Staging Indians, Making Americans, 1880-1930, (New
York, Hill and Wang, 2004)
Ziolkowski-Howe, Monique, interview by author, telephone interview, 2 April 2007