The Crazy Horse Memorial is offensive to many Native Americans because it was started without the permission or blessing of Crazy Horse’s descendants or the Oglala Lakota Nation, and the project itself is seen by some as a form of historical grievance and cultural appropriation, especially since Crazy Horse explicitly wished for no monument to be built in his honor.
Fathoming the Core of the Dispute
The massive sculpture in the Black Hills of South Dakota draws millions of visitors. Yet, behind the impressive scale lies a deep and ongoing Crazy Horse controversy. This issue centers on respect, ownership of history, and honoring the wishes of a great Lakota leader disrespect. To many, the mountain carving represents a failure to listen to indigenous perspectives.
The Man Behind the Mountain: Crazy Horse’s Legacy
Crazy Horse, or Tȟašúŋke Witkó, was a revered Oglala Lakota war leader. He fought bravely against the forced removal of his people onto reservations. His legacy is one of fierce defense of Lakota freedom and the Black Hills, the Paha Sapa.
Refusal of Recognition
A key element in this debate is Crazy Horse’s own stated wish. He reportedly did not want his image memorialized. He valued his privacy and the sanctity of his deeds being remembered by his people, not carved in stone for outsiders.
- He believed his deeds should live in the stories of his nation.
- He distrusted the white man’s promises and symbols.
- He preferred his influence to remain with the living community.
This desire directly conflicts with the massive public monument debate now centered on the mountain.
The Role of the Sculptor and Family Wishes
The project began in 1948, led by sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski. He claimed to be fulfilling a request from Lakota elder Henry Standing Bear. However, this claim is widely disputed by many tribal members today.
Initial Consent Versus Current Opposition
While Standing Bear initiated the project, the lack of consultation with Crazy Horse’s direct descendants is a major factor fueling Native American sensitivity. For many, this process began as a betrayal of trust.
| Aspect of Controversy | Description | Impact on Tribe |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Tribal Control | Non-Native sculptor leads the project. | Feeling of being outsiders to their own history. |
| Violation of Wishes | Disregard for Crazy Horse’s reported desire for no statue. | Deep insult to his memory and spirit. |
| Location | Carving occurs in the sacred Black Hills. | Adds to historical grievances over land loss. |
This situation highlights the difficulty in balancing artistic endeavor with deep historical grievances.
Interpreting Historical Grievances and Land Claims
The location of the Crazy Horse Memorial is not accidental. It is deep within the Black Hills, land sacred to the Lakota people. This land was guaranteed to the Lakota in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie but was later seized by the U.S. government after gold was discovered.
The Sacredness of the Paha Sapa
The Black Hills hold profound spiritual meaning for the Lakota. They are the center of their world. Having a massive statue carved into this sacred rock face is seen by many as yet another act of desecration following decades of encroachment.
The Symbolic Meaning of the Carving
For some, the carving symbolizes the forceful imposition of settler culture onto indigenous space. The mountain itself is being reshaped to fit a non-Native vision of honoring a Lakota hero. This clashes with the true symbolic meaning of the land to the Oglala Lakota.
The Mount Rushmore Parallel
The Crazy Horse Memorial is often compared to nearby Mount Rushmore, which depicts four U.S. presidents. Mount Rushmore is seen by many Lakota as an insult, a carving of invaders on stolen land. While the intent of the Crazy Horse project might be different, its very existence in the same region compounds the feeling of being overshadowed and misinterpreted.
Deciphering Cultural Appropriation and Ownership
A major thread in the Crazy Horse controversy is the debate over who has the right to tell and commemorate the story of a Native leader. This touches on issues of cultural appropriation debate.
Who Benefits Financially?
The memorial is a massive tourist draw, generating significant revenue. Critics argue that this wealth does not adequately benefit the Oglala Lakota community, especially the descendants of Crazy Horse. The project remains largely controlled by the Ziolkowski family and associated foundations.
- Is the benefit shared equitably?
- Who controls the narrative presented to tourists?
- Does the family profiting from the monument have the right to do so?
These questions underscore the power dynamics at play.
The Question of Historical Accuracy
While the sheer size is undeniable, questions about historical accuracy persist. How accurately can a massive, stylized mountain carving capture the complexity and spirit of a man who resisted assimilation? Many feel that the simplified image presented to the public strips Crazy Horse of his true historical context and agency.
Reducing a Leader to a Monument
Crazy Horse was a complex spiritual and military leader. Reducing his entire life to a massive, still-incomplete bust risks turning a powerful figure into a mere roadside attraction. This simplification erodes the deep memorial significance his life holds for his people.
The Impact on Indigenous Perspectives Today
The ongoing existence of the memorial forces modern Lakota people to confront difficult questions about their history and identity in the face of American expansion.
The Divide Within the Community
It is vital to note that not all Lakota people share the same view on the memorial. Some see it as a necessary beacon of Native pride, a way to ensure the world knows a great Native hero existed. Others see it as a tragic, misguided venture.
Voices for Continued Support
Supporters often point to the educational aspects and the sheer magnitude of the undertaking as a positive step. They might argue that it draws attention to the Black Hills and Native history that otherwise might be ignored.
Voices Against Continuation
Opponents emphasize the moral imperative to honor the clear wishes of the deceased leader and his close relatives. They focus on the ongoing issue of sovereignty and self-determination, arguing that the tribe should decide how its heroes are honored, or if they are honored publicly at all.
The Right to Say No
The right of indigenous communities to control their own heritage and sacred sites is central to this debate. When external parties—even those claiming good intentions—override these wishes, it reinforces long-standing patterns of colonial disregard.
Memorial Significance Versus Personal Wishes
The entire premise hinges on the tension between public commemoration and private desire. How much weight should the symbolic meaning of a monument carry versus the direct, recorded wishes of the person being honored?
Comparing the Intent
| Intent of the Monument | Intent of Crazy Horse (as reported) | Conflict Point |
|---|---|---|
| Permanent, physical marker. | Deeds should live in memory and oral tradition. | Permanence vs. Spirituality. |
| International tourist attraction. | Privacy and avoidance of external attention. | Public display vs. Private life. |
| Large-scale artistic statement. | Focus on community survival and defense. | Art over ancestral respect. |
This highlights the profound gulf in worldview regarding commemoration.
The Cultural Appropriation Debate in Action
The cultural appropriation debate often asks: Who profits, and who has the authority? In this case, the ongoing nature of the carving, spanning nearly 75 years, means that generations of non-Natives have been involved in shaping the look of this Lakota hero. This continuation fuels the feeling that the essence of the man is being molded by outside forces.
Public Monument Debate and Future Directions
The public monument debate in the United States is fraught with challenges, often centered on historical figures whose actions are now viewed critically. The Crazy Horse situation presents a unique twist: honoring a figure who actively resisted the prevailing culture, yet doing so in a way that violates his known wishes.
Moving Toward Resolution
For the controversy to ease, genuine engagement with the Oglala Lakota Nation is necessary. This means more than just inviting tribal leaders for photo opportunities. It requires:
- Respectful Consultation: Seriously addressing the concerns of Crazy Horse’s direct descendants.
- Transparency: Full financial and operational openness regarding the memorial’s management.
- Revisiting the Mandate: Discussing whether the current scale and form align with any modern tribal consensus regarding the site.
Addressing historical grievances requires active listening, not just grand gestures.
The Black Hills: A Symbol of Unresolved Conflict
The controversy over the memorial cannot be separated from the ongoing struggle over the Black Hills. As long as the fundamental issue of land ownership and sacred site protection remains unresolved, monuments erected there will carry the heavy weight of that conflict. The memorial becomes a visible marker of the long road toward reconciliation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Is the Crazy Horse Memorial finished?
A: No. The memorial is still actively under construction. It is one of the largest mountain carvings in the world, and only a portion of Crazy Horse’s head and part of his horse’s head are complete.
Q: Did Crazy Horse ask for a monument to be built?
A: Historical accounts widely suggest the opposite. Crazy Horse reportedly told General George Crook that he did not want a monument built to him and preferred his memory to rest with his people.
Q: Who currently controls the Crazy Horse Memorial?
A: The project is managed by the Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation, which was established by the sculptor and is currently overseen by his family. This family control is a major point of contention for many tribal members.
Q: Why is the location in the Black Hills important?
A: The Black Hills (Paha Sapa) are central to the spiritual life and history of the Lakota people. They were guaranteed to the Lakota by treaty but later taken by the U.S. government. Building a large monument there evokes the painful history of land seizure and broken promises.