A Signal of Peace: The Future of a Contested Monument Overlooking Lake Michigan stands A Signal of Peace, built by Cyrus Edwin Dallin in 1890, a Native American equestrian statue that is displayed in Lincoln Park, a large community area in the north side of Chicago, Illinois. The statue is life-size, bronze, and depicts a Native American man with a long spear in hand, riding on top of a horse (fig. 1). It is the first in a series of statues called The Epic of the Indian, a group of four monuments depicting Indigenous individuals on horseback that have been interpreted to display a chronological narrative about the fate of Native Americans in relation to European colonization. A Signal of Peace should not remain in its current location, but should be relocated to the Cyrus Dallin Art Museum, where it can be displayed among Dallin’s other works of art and depictions of Native Americans. Based on the monument’s visual appearance, it should not remain in a popular, public park where it can have a negative impact on the population, especially members of the American Indigenous community. If displayed in this museum, individuals will be given the choice to put themselves in the presence of Dallin’s artwork, instead of the potential of being exposed to Native American imagery created by a white man that sends a potentially harmful message to those exposed to it. A Signal of Peace is problematic and should not remain in a public space because it is a potentially harmful representation of Native Americans that was created by a white man who is of European descent. Despite Cyrus Dallin’s relationship and admiration for the Native American people and his likely good intentions, this does not justify depicting them in a manner that has a high potential for being interpreted in a negative way. Especially because Dallin is a white man of European descent, it is questionable why it would be acceptable for him to create these depictions in the first place. It all dates back to Dallin’s relationship with Native Americans in his childhood, when he lived in Springville, Utah. Born in 1861, Cyrus was the second of eight children of Thomas and Jane Dallin, both English-born, who had settled in the small frontier town of Springville only ten years prior to Dallin’s birth. Only fifty miles south of Salt Lake City, this area was the heart of two Native American tribes: the Paiute and the Ute tribes. During the fall and spring, the people of these tribes would camp outside of Springville to trade with the townspeople, and this gave Dallin the opportunity to interact with them. As a young boy who loved to play outside, Cyrus enjoyed the company of the Indigenous children of these tribes, and they taught him games from their culture and other skills, like how to shoot a bow and arrow. For the time, Dallin’s father, Thomas, was progressive for showing less prejudice toward the Indigenous population and allowing his children to play and interact with them, unlike others who lived in the Utah settlement. These interactions had a great influence on Cyrus, and this is where he gained an admiration and respect for the Indigenous people. However, as much as Dallin attempted to immerse himself into Native American culture, there are limits to what he as a white man should have done regarding the culture of a people that his race has continually oppressed. Because Dallin, a member of a privileged background, adopted elements of a culture not intended for him, he went too far past the line between cultural appreciation and appropriation. A prime example of cultural appropriation on Dallin’s part is displayed in a photograph of him in traditional Indigenous costume, shooting a bow and arrow (fig. 2). As much as one can desire to honor a culture, and put themselves in the shoes of others, this display was a very inappropriate one, especially in the privileged position that Dallin held over these people. This can be compared to how Dallin has created many monuments, including A Signal of Peace, that depict a minority culture that is not his own which tells a narrative of how the Europeans (his own people) oppressed the Native Americans so substantially that it led to the significant declination of the entire population. For this depiction to be on display for all to see is simply not appropriate, and supports the argument that A Signal of Peace should be removed from Lincoln Park to the Cyrus Dallin Art Museum, so that countless individuals do not have to be exposed to this appropriation without their own choosing.1 Looking into the history of this monument and its inspiration, one must look at Dallin’s early career as an artist. With his upbringing that gave him a sense of admiration for Native Americans, he began to incorporate them into his art while living in Boston, MA. His first Indigenous monument was called Indian Hunter (1888), which displays a Native American figure in the midst of shooting a bow and arrow, for which he won a gold medal in a New York competition. Later that August, Dallin moved to Paris, France to study under Henri Chapu at the Academie Julien.2 Subsequently after is when he gained the inspiration for A Signal of Peace. Attending with famous painter Rosa Bonheur, Dallin became highly interested in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, which was touring at Bois de Boulogne for six months. The show hit close to home for Dallin, remembering his love for Native Americans as a child, since the show included many Indigenous individuals, as well as buffalo and cowboys. The figure for A Signal of Peace was modeled off of a figure Dallin created based on Kicking Bear, a Lakota Indian man who participated in the Wild West Show, called Philip Son of Kicking Bear (fig. 3). Dallin created A Signal of Peace as a life-size Native American equestrian figure, one displaying a peaceful gesture, and submitted it into the Paris Salon of 1890 where it won honorable mention.3 During the period of 1888-1890, while Dallin was staying in Paris, there were conflicts going on in the United States regarding land negotiations between the Lakota tribe and the U.S. government. 1 Ewers, John C. “Cyrus E. Dallin: Master Sculptor of the Plains Indian.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 18, no. 1 (Winter 1968): 34–43. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4517220?seq=3. 2 Downs, William Howe. “Cyrus E. Dallin, Sculptor.” Brush and Pencil 5, no. 1 (October 1899): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/25505468. 3 Ewers, John C. “Cyrus E. Dallin: Master Sculptor of the Plains Indian.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 18, no. 1 (Winter 1968): 34–43. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4517220?seq=3. While these contentions ended with the Sioux Act of 1889, “an act to divide a portion of the reservation of the Sioux Nation of Indians in Dakota into separate reservations, and to secure the relinquishment of the Indians' title to the remainder, and for other purposes.”4 It is thought that Dallin created this statue of a native figure offering an expression of peace in order to offer a sort of accord during this heated time between Native Americans and the U.S. government. Following the Paris Salon of 1890, Dallin returned to the United States, and he brought the bronze cast of A Signal of Peace to exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. At this exhibition is where Lambert Tree, a court judge and patron of the arts, set his eye on the monument and purchased it from Dallin for 10,000 dollars, and dedicated it in Lincoln Park in Chicago in June of 1894. This is where A Signal of Peace still stands today, untouched and unmoved for more than one hundred years. A Signal of Peace is already problematic as a monument due to its depiction of a Native American figure created by a white man, but it becomes increasingly more harmful when put into the context of the other three statues in The Epic of the Indian. This monument was only the first of four monuments that Dallin would go on to create, which he never explicitly stated the meaning of, but has been widely interpreted as a narrative of the fate of the Native American people as a result of European colonization and the oppression of Indigenous populations in the United States. A Signal of Peace (1890), also called The Welcome, is the first of the chronologic series and is perceived to depict the “naive” first encounter of the European settlers in North America by the Native Americans. The figure is holding in his hand a long spear, which is stretched upward, and this is meant to represent a traditional Indigenous sign of peace, hence the 4 Committee on Indian Affairs, and Curtis. Report, University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons §. 1686. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6478&context=indianserialset#:~:text=sent%20to%2 0the%20provisions%20of,%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.%22. title of the monument. The countenance of the man is also one that is open, and the ears of the horse he is riding are perked up in curiosity (fig. 4). The second statue in the series Dallin built almost a decade later in 1899, titled The Medicine Man. It depicts a Native American man on horseback, with one hand held up and a concerned expression on the man’s face (fig. 5). This is perceived as the hesitancy and first warning of harm that may come from the European settlers toward the Indigenous people and their land. This statue still stands today in Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, PA. The third in the series is The Protest of the Sioux, built in 1904 by Dallin. This monument depicts a Native American man on horseback, where the man has his fist stretched outward in protest, with an expression of anger, while the horse is in a fearful, retreating stance (fig. 5). In this installment of the series of statues, the meaning is interpreted to be the retaliation of the Native American people against their mistreatment and oppression from the white settlers. This statue is the only one of the series to not be displayed publicly, as it was never cast into a full-size bronze monument. The last statue in The Epic of the Indian is Appeal to the Great Spirit, built in 1908. This statue depicts a Native American man on horseback, leaning back with his arms stretched out to his sides, looking up to the sky (fig. 6). This is interpreted to represent the “defeat” of the Indigenous people by the white settlers, as the figure in the monument is adopting a pose of surrender. The monument remains on display in front of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, MA.5 When examining these statues in the context of this narrative of the “defeated” Native American race, it would not be far-fetched to perceive them as highly problematic depictions of indigenous people, especially since the artist is of English descent. Without any explicit word from Dallin himself regarding the meaning of these monuments, it is very easy for A Signal of 5 Pomeroy, E. Wilbur, and Ethel Pomeroy. “Cyrus E. Dallin and the North American Indian: Four Statues Which Express the Fate of a Dying Race.” Arts & Decoration 4, no. 4 (February 1, 1914): 152–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43807357?seq=2 Peace and the rest of The Epic of the Indian to fall under the category of works of art that perpetuate the vanishing race mythology. This is the ideology that Native Americans are a “vanishing” race, and that it was always inevitable for their population to diminish due to a misconception of inferiority and racism. However, this ideology is a myth due to the fact that Native American populations dropped dramatically because of their genocide by white colonizers coming to North America. In his book, The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy, Brian Dippie wrote that “The Vanishing American achieved the status of a cultural myth. The point was no longer whether or not the native population had declined in the past but that its future decline was inevitable. The myth of the Vanishing American accounted for the American Indians’ future by denying them one” (Dippie XII).6 An example of another monument that perpetuates this myth, that A Signal of Peace and The Epic of the Indian can easily be associated with, is End of the Trail (1918), a sculpture by James Earle Fraser. Like Dallin’s sculptures, this monument depicts a Native American man on horseback, but this man is visibly defeated with him and his horse both hunched over themselves (fig. 7). According to the Art Institute of Chicago, this statue “symbolizes the genocide of Native American peoples amid relentless westward expansion.”7 Especially for those who identify as Indigenous or come from native descent, there is no need for them to be reminded of the oppression that their people have endured with statues created by white men that depict them in a vulnerable and defeated state.8 Contrary to the many problematic associations and criticisms of A Signal of Peace and the other statues in The Epic of the Indian, Dallin’s intentions for these monuments are 6 Dippie, Brian William. Preface. In The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy, XII. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1991. https://books.google.com/books?id=7qYrAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PR11&dq=vanishing%20race%20theory&lr&pg=PR10 #v=onepage&q&f=false. 7 Fraser, James Earle. “The End of the Trail.” The Art Institute of Chicago. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/111661/the-end-of-the-trail. 8 Burns, Emily C. “Political Contestation in Cyrus Dallin’s American Indian Monuments.” Archives of American Art Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/698333. seemingly good, as he claimed himself to be an Indigenous rights activist. While it is better for Dallin to have been wanting to spread awareness about the mistreatment of Native Americans by creating these works of art, it does not excuse the harmful impact that the statues cause to those encountering them, who most likely will not know Dallin’s background or consider his goodwill to be enough of an excuse for him. Despite criticisms that he received about A Signal of Peace during his lifetime, he never fully acknowledged that he committed any wrongdoing, and remained claiming himself as an advocate for Indigenous Americans. There are many people who praised him during his time for the monuments that he made, applauding him for the progressiveness of the message he is spreading with these monuments. For example, Lambert Tree who purchased and dedicated A Signal of Peace, positively regarded the statue, stating it as a memorial to the Native Americans whom there “[wa]s no future for them except as they may exist as a memory in the sculptor’s bronze.”9 Another significant remark of praise for Dallin’s sculptures came from a reviewer in 1909, who said that “Mr. Dallin knows the Indian psychically as well as physically. He has not only put himself inside his skin, as we say, but he has climbed into his consciousness and studied the way his mind works.”10 Remarks like this miss the mark of what Dallin intended for this sculpture, and they do not treat Indigenous individuals with the respect and dignity that he wanted to give them through this statue. Treating it as a memorial for Native Americans further perpetuates the vanishing race myth, because while there has been a genocide of Native Americans in the United States since colonization, Indigenous people still exist, and it is not appropriate to treat their existence as one that is in the past tense. One of the first sources regarding Dallin that appears when performing an online web search about him is the webpage for the Cyrus Dallin Art Museum, which includes a section 9 Burns, Emily C. “Political Contestation in Cyrus Dallin’s American Indian Monuments.” Archives of American Art Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/698333 . 10 Ibid. about Dallin and his life. This blurb states him as an Indigenous rights activist who “had a deep respect for Native people, and he was profoundly disturbed by the crimes he witnessed being perpetrated against them by the U.S. government. His sculptures of Indigenous people were intended as personal reflections on humans that he admired, and public commemorations of Indigenous resilience in the face of ongoing subjugation.”11 Even further, it went on to say that “Dallin spent the last 20 years of his career fiercely criticizing American Imperialism and passionately advocating for the rights of Indigenous peoples. He sought out many opportunities to educate white audiences on the truth of history and their own ‘complacency and self-righteousness.’”12 While this page does not cite any sources, these views are backed up by many newspaper clippings, manuscripts, and letters that are in the Archives of American Art, and it is apparent that he truly desired better conditions for the Native American people, and advocated for them to the best of his ability. However, while Dallin dedicated many years of his life to spreading awareness on the mistreatment of Indigenous people in America and advocating for them, this still does not change the matter of how his monuments, namely A Signal of Peace, are perceived by the public. With work from the Chicago Monuments Project (CMP), many monuments in the Chicago area have gone under review to determine if action should be taken in relation to them, as well as ideas for new public art to be commissioned. Importantly, their objective is also to facilitate public discussion regarding the history of monuments in Chicago. This project was started in the fall of 2020 in response to a nationwide call for the removal of monuments with racist roots, namely Confederate monuments, following the murder of George Floyd earlier that summer. The CMP flagged forty-one monuments to be brought to the attention of the public for discussion due 11 “Cyrus Dallin.” Cyrus Dallin Art Museum. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://dallin.org/about-cyrus-dallin/. 12 Ibid. to one or more themes of either white supremacy, stereotypical/demeaning representation of American Indians, individuals associated with racism/slavery/genocide, oversimplified perspectives of history, exclusion of minority groups, or those that cause tensions due to debates regarding its value. The CMP committee–made up of city officials, artists, scholars, architects, community leaders, and curators–then requested public engagement regarding these monuments, via feedback on their website, surveys, virtual discussions, and more.13 A Signal of Peace was one of the flagged monuments, due to its representation of American Indian figures, and was included in a survey focused on the representation of American Indians in collaboration with the Chicago American Indian Community Collaborative (CAICC). In regards to the question of what to be done with A Signal of Peace, twenty percent of responses said to take the monument down, twenty percent said to commission new artwork in response, twenty percent said that no changes are needed, and forty-five percent said to add new signage. Out of all the questionable Native American monuments, A Signal of Peace was actually considered the most positively regarded depiction, yet these statistics were still very low at around twenty percent. The main concern with this statue and other American Indian representations is that they are historically inaccurate and do not accurately represent indigenous people and their culture that are from the Chicago area and surrounding regions. Survey respondents said that native people in this area did not ride horses, like depicted in A Signal of Peace, and that stereotypical depictions of natives in “war-like” and “savage” clothing do not represent them as fully recognized members of society just like everyone else. When questioned about new works of art, eighty percent of respondents wanted to see Native American stories that represent their traditions and perspectives, and sixty percent wanted to see contemporary stories and historical events that reflect the lives of 13 “Home - Chicago Monuments Project.” Chicago Monuments Project. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://chicagomonuments.org/. American Indians in Chicago.14 Overall, it is clear based on the responses of Chicago citizens that there must be action taken regarding A Signal of Peace. The surveying of Chicago-area American Indians has revealed that this population thinks that action must be taken with the monument due to historical inaccuracies and stereotypical depictions of natives, and that they are being misrepresented by a white man who is trying to speak for them. Dallin, a white man who is widely remembered for A Signal of Peace and his other native equestrian monuments, was an advocate for Indigenous Americans who had good intentions with his work, but never fully acknowledged the criticisms and harmful impact that his sculptures have caused for others. Due to its symbolism of Native Americans and their oppression, it unintentionally perpetuates the vanishing race myth, depicting Indigenous people as a “dying race.” The Cyrus Dallin Art Museum would be an ideal spot for the relocation of this statue because it is one of Dallin’s many popular works, and it falls perfectly under the criteria of artwork that the museum would accept simply because it was created by Dallin himself. The museum itself is in a medium-sized house, so the full-sized bronze would not fit indoors, but it could be displayed on the lawn in front of the museum, which is a part of Whittemore Park, a small city park (fig. 9). This relocation would be effective in reducing the amount of harm that the statue causes to others because of the fact that it would be seen much less by the public, due to Arlington, MA being a significantly less populated area than Lincoln Park, by around twenty thousand people. The monument should include additional signage, that should include a brief history of Dallin’s history as an Indigenous rights activist, his personal relationship with Native Americans stemming from childhood, and the inspiration for the monument itself while studying in Paris 14 Nicodemus, Anne Gadwa, Susan Fitter Harris, and Rob Walton. “Chicago Monuments Project: Recommendations for the Current and Future Collection.” Chicago Monuments Project, August 2022. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dca/cmp/cmpreport.pdf. and attending the Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show. It should also include an acknowledgment that this statue is by no means an accurate representation of American Indians, but that Dallin’s intention for the monument was to spread awareness of the mistreatment of Native Americans. The signage should additionally mention that the monument was previously located in Lincoln Park, Chicago before the city decided that it would be more appropriate for it to remain on display at the Cyrus Dallin Art Museum. A Signal of Peace undoubtedly has value, despite its flaws and unintentional harm to those in marginalized communities. The solution to relocate this statue to a small-scale museum in a lesser populated area than Lincoln Park helps to reduce its possibility for harmful impact because of the reduced population that will see it on a daily basis, and that there is more of a choice for individuals to put themselves in the presence of this monument when it is part of a designated museum. Some may say that it must be indefinitely removed from public display due to its implications, but Dallin’s intention was to spread awareness and educate the public on the mistreatment of American Indians, and the removal of A Signal of Peace would completely get rid of that purpose. This solution would be a step in the right direction for all monuments depicting Native Americans and could spark change for contested statues, including the other native equestrian monuments by Dallin, namely The Epic of the Indian. The world is changing every day, and progress like this would help to improve our society by giving the additional respect and treatment that present-day marginalized communities deserve, and acknowledging the history of these monuments and past mistakes helps our society to become a better place in the future. BIBLIOGRAPHY Burns, Emily C. “Political Contestation in Cyrus Dallin’s American Indian Monuments.” Archives of American Art Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/698333. Committee on Indian Affairs, and Curtis. Report, University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons §. 1686. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6478&context=indianserialset#:~ :text=sent%20to%20the%20provisions%20of,%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.%22. “Cyrus Dallin.” Cyrus Dallin Art Museum. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://dallin.org/about-cyrus-dallin/. Dippie, Brian William. Preface. In The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy, XII. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1991. https://books.google.com/books?id=7qYrAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PR11&dq=vanishing%20race%20th eory&lr&pg=PR10#v=onepage&q&f=false. Downs, William Howe. “Cyrus E. Dallin, Sculptor.” Brush and Pencil 5, no. 1 (October 1899): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/25505468. Ewers, John C. “Cyrus E. Dallin: Master Sculptor of the Plains Indian.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 18, no. 1 (Winter 1968): 34–43. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4517220?seq=3. Fraser, James Earle. “The End of the Trail.” The Art Institute of Chicago. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/111661/the-end-of-the-trail. “Home - Chicago Monuments Project.” Chicago Monuments Project. Accessed May 14, 2023. https://chicagomonuments.org/. Nicodemus, Anne Gadwa, Susan Fitter Harris, and Rob Walton. “Chicago Monuments Project: Recommendations for the Current and Future Collection.” Chicago Monuments Project, August 2022. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dca/cmp/cmpreport.pdf. Pomeroy, E. Wilbur, and Ethel Pomeroy. “Cyrus E. Dallin and the North American Indian: Four Statues Which Express the Fate of a Dying Race.” Arts & Decoration 4, no. 4 (February 1, 1914): 152–53. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43807357?seq=2. Fig. 1: A Signal of Peace, Cyrus Dallin Fig. 2: Cyrus Dallin in American Indian costume Fig. 3: Philip Son of Kicking Bear, Cyrus Dallin Fig. 4: A Signal of Peace, Cyrus Dallin Fig. 5: The Medicine Man, Cyrus Dallin Fig. 6: Protest of the Sioux, Cyrus Dallin Fig. 7: Appeal to the Great Spirit, Cyrus Dallin Fig. 8: End of the Trail, James Earle Fraser Fig. 9: Cyrus Dallin Art Museum, Arlington, MA
