Local history buffs met over the weekend to discuss the story of the Nuche (Ute people) who as of 1860 had lived in the the area for more than 400 years according to official records, with some archeologists highlighting evidence that the Utes’ ancestors had resided in the area for thousands of years.
Ultimately the treaty was not upheld by the U.S., leading to the expulsion of the Utes following the Battle of Milk Creek. Meeker’s continued attempts (at the behest of the U.S. government) to assimilate the indigenous population escalated tensions. That pushed U.S. Army Major Thomas Thornburgh to lead a column of cavalry into Ute’s then-sovereign territory on his way to protect Meeker. Utes opened fire on the cavalry column who took the move as a violation of the Treaty of 1868, which in agreement with seven Ute bands including Uintah’s Ute band, guaranteed a permanent reservation on Colorado’s Western Slope in exchange for ceding the Central Rockies to the United States. which they considered an act of war and responded.
During the battle of Milk Creek another incident/battle broke out at the White River Agency near modern-day Meeker, resulting in the death of Nathan Meeker and 10 others, according to official history.
DISCUSSION
That “official” history and questioning its validity was a prominent theme as a select group met for discussions about the history of the region, reconciliation and words.
Johnny Taylor Valdez, who led the discussion, focused on the “words.” In particular, how they create understanding for peace and cooperation, or how they break trust, cause misunderstandings, and lead to negative behaviors and emotions. He reflected on his looking back at the history of Utes and their interactions with settlers, misunderstandings of words with no translations or ideas without a similar concept in other cultures could have led to small understandings that ultimately led to violence, misinterpretations, perceived slights or conversely, peaceful negotiation and even friendship.
In the same way, he discussed the use of words today, particularly in the crafting of history, noting how history is initially told, and often commonly understood by victors, wherever conflict is concerned. With the goal of reconciling history, he noted the importance of not simply “correcting the record,” but representing the perspectives of those who did not have the opportunity to tell their side of the story.
Another native descendant in attendance noted how hard it has been for them to come to the area surrounding Meeker and the Piceance Basin over their lifetime, particularly given misrepresentations and differences in the presentation of history.
“History is something to learn, history is something to grow, but history is also a foundation of who we are, and who we become,” he said, describing the telling of history as a “family bonding.” Throughout the discussion, he also expanded upon various experiences growing up, where he emphasized that even though stories been passed down throughout generations of his family remained consistent, they would often not match up with official U.S. records of history, or the understanding of the general population. The story of the Milk Creek Battle, the Meeker Incident and others from the region were just some examples.
Valdez reiterated this point by talking about his discovery of the Milk Creek battle’s one-sided presentation in a variety of contexts, including the congressional record.
“Why is the story not accurate?” he said while recounting his path toward finding the truest representations of history. He also made note of one of many commonly held misconceptions about the Milk Creek battle. “Thornburg was not the last battle,” he said, referring to the idea that the incident involving Nathan Meeker and Thornburg was the last clash between native/indigenous populations and the U.S. government.
Reconciliation
Another major component of the discussion, and a focus for Valdez, was “reconciliation.” This meant featuring “words that heal” versus “words that hurt,” two prompts that incurred many of the same responses and also resulted in widely varied interpretations across the room. Some examples from the discussion:
Words that hurt:
Attack, break, can’t, compromise, condescending, cowardice, deny, destroy, cowardice, disrespect, dismiss, disappeared.
Words that heal:
Co-mingling, accept, bless, care, compassion, include, happiness, involvement, learn, peace, see.
A link to the spreadsheet is available in the digital version of this story at ht1885.com
What do you think, what kinds of words, ways of expressing them or otherwise hurt? What words heal? What do those questions mean to you?
