Confronting Violence at the Little Bighorn

The Little Bighorn battlefield is a place of violence-both in the past and present. The list of books about the historic battle is long, and the telling of the Little Bighorn story continues to grow more inclusive, yet the literature generally lacks careful analysis of the nature of violence. The military historians who dominate the field tend to take for granted the presence of armed combat and may be unaware of the valuable insights offered by peace theory. Unlike the social science fields, including history, which cling to the pretence of scholarly "detachment," peace studies admits to a specific social goal. The goal of peace studies, ultimately, is to reduce current levels of violence and to make future violence less likely. From this perspective, the traditional telling of history can be troublesome. Interpretations of the past which, however unwittingly or subtly, depict warfare as inevitable, inexplicable, admirable, or glorious contribute to war-making in the present day. This article is concerned with how history is presented in and around the Little Bighorn battlefield and how that presentation may promote violence. The article offers a brief summary and explanation of Johan Galtung's peace and violence triangles, then applies that theory to the historical conflict between US and Lakota societies. Next, the lens is turned to the cultural violence of the Little Bighorn National Monument. Finally, because peace studies also demands application beyond the academy, this article offers a peace prescription for the region, not as a complete and authoritative solution, but as an example to promote creative, inclusive conflict resolution. In sum, this article shows how a better historical understanding of conflict and violence offers hope for a less violent future.