Page 147 - Confronting Race Women and Indians on the Frontier, 1815 - 1915

F R ONT I E R PROCESS: H U MANI Z I N G

Obviously, white women imposed the standards f white society on
o
people f r om a very different way of life. 39 Instead of being attracted by
the color, spirit, and verve of native apparel, women's reactions tended
toward discomfiture because American Indians dressed so differently f r om
whites. Rather than admiring the craftwork involved in native jewelry,
quill work, and beading, many women-at least initially-disregarded
such decorations as pagan, ostentatious, or excessive. Given white women's
f a shions, these judgments were humorous. Characterized through the
nineteenth century by such sartorial splendor as bustles, hoopskirts, and
leg-o'-mutton sleeves, white women's styles now seem rather peculiar
themselves. W o men who aspired to a fifteen-inch waist through severe
corseting, beginning in childhood, or by the extreme method of surgical
removal of the lower ribs, might have shown some tolerance fo r Indian
f a shions. e t these women, who saw themselves as the carriers of white
Y
civilization to aborigines, thought their own styles not at all eccentric,
whereas they condemned those of the Indians as absurd.
In a similar shortsighted manner, women passed harsh judgments on
what they perceived as low standards of cleanliness among Indian groups.
White women, who bathed infrequently and doused themselves with
"toilet water" and perfumes, disparaged various Native Americans as dirty
and even filthy.40 Although many Indians bathed fr equently and cleansed
themselves in sweat baths, they were perceived as unclean. Garbed injew­
elry, paint, and colorful blankets, they were, according to Annie M. Zeigler,
"picturesque" but "often dirty."41 T o Sallie Maddock, they were "disgust­
ing and dirty looking." T o Mary Staples, they fo rmed "a filthy set," and
to Mary Jane Guill, "a filthy and dirty set ofIndians."42 One woman was
firmly convinced that "the romance of Indian life will not bear a closer
inspection-they are neither more or less than fllthy savages."43
As vitriolic as these opinions were, other women were even more
vicious. One charged that "filth" and Indian were "inseparable." Another
dismissed an entire village of natives with the statement that "the creatures
looked too filthy to live."44 Sarah Herndon maintained that Native
Americans were "the most wretched looking human creatures" that she
had ever seen. T o her there was "nothing majestic, dignified, or noble­
looking" about any of the Indians. Clearly disappointed that she had not
f o und a Cooperesque Indian, Herndon caustically wrote, "I f a il as yet to

1 39