The Fur Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991

Articulation of the Lakota Mode of Production and the Euro-American Fur Trade1

Articulation of the Lakota Mode of Production and the Euro-American Fur Trade1 Kathleen Pickering Scholars have debated the question of whether Indians generally were "dependent" upon the Euro-American fur trade or whether they retained options of economic independence until Reservation confinement. This debate has been complicated by different uses of the term "dependent." The everyday meaning of dependence as reliance on others may imply varying degrees of asymmetry in the relative power of trading partners. Dependency is also used in the theoretical sense of the outcome to small economies of being incorporated into the world system with the structural distortions that inevitably result, the expansion of a core country's economy implying the underdevelopment of peripheral economies (see, e.g., Kardulias 1990: 25-60; Swagerty 1988: 71-94; Krech 1988: 62-70; White 1983; Bishop 1984: 21-49). Further difficulties have resulted from applying different scales of analysis to the question of dependence. Dependency theorists look at the macro-level of economic interaction, where it is difficult to argue that anyone Indian group possessed the economic power of the expanding European empires. On the micro-level, by contrast, there are countless instances of Indian groups holding the upper hand in trade relations with agents of large trading companies who found themselves isolated and vulnerable. It is difficult to quantify the notion of dependency. It is possible, however, to locate concrete changes in the micro-level organization of a particular Indian group by focusing on the articulation between their mode of production and that of the Euro-American mercantile fur trade. A society's mode of production describes the ways in which people produce their livelihood, including the materials and processes used and all the social relationships surrounding that production. The depth of penetration by the Euro-American mode of production may be measured through the nature and extent of transformations in an Indian group's mode of production during the course of their involvement with the fur trade (d. Bishop 1984: 48-49). 57 KATHLEEN PICKERING Each Indian group had a different social structure, historic context, and fur trade experience. The Lakota, or Teton Sioux, experienced a long and gradual articulation with the Euro-American fur trade. Therefore, they provide a useful case for tracing the transformations in their mode of production and the implications of those changes for their economic self-determination.2 1. EARLY LAKOTA MODE OF PRODUCTION-BEFORE 1650 In the middle of the seventeenth century, the Lakota were located in south central Minnesota (Neill 1881: 9; Wedel 1974: 165-66; White 1978: 321; lablow 1951: 3). The productive activities of men and women were complementary. Men primarily hunted and made weapons, while women focused on gathering wild food, preparing animal skins, and making clothing and household goods. Neither sex controlled the intensity, pace, direction, or distribution of the work of the other (Albers 1985: 117-19; Walker 1982: 63-64). The Lakota camped on the prairies in the summer to hunt buffalo, and on the more sheltered forest edge in the winter to hunt deer and be near ample firewood (Secoy 1953: 6667 ; Walker 1982: 16-17; Neill 1881: 42). Women, young people, and dogs transported the camp to new locations, limiting the amount of food and goods that families could accumulate (Mishkin 1940: 19; Secoy 1953: 67, 87; Neill 1881: 42,71; lablow 1951: 10; Wissler 1914: 11-12). Figure 1. Before acquisition of the horse, Lakota camps were transported to new locations by women with the help of dog travois. Painted by Kills Two. Courtesy of Hubert Alexander. 58 THE LAKOTA MODE OF PRODUCTION AND THE BURO-AMERICAN FUR TRADE Kinship was the central institution for Lakota social relations. The tiyospaye or extended family group was the primary and relatively autonomous social unit (Hyde 1937: 30; Dorsey 1897: 218; Bamforth 1988: 104-5; Schusky 1986: 69; Neill 1881: 44; Walker 1982: 7-8, 24, 28; Wedel 1974: 166; Secoy 1953: 68; White 1978: 321). Several tiyospayes could join for ceremonies, hunting, or warfare . Groups of tiyospayes formed the seven Lakota divisions, such as the Oglala, Sicangu, or Hunkpapa (Schusky 1986: 68; Walker 1982: 6-7, 19, 28, 50). Every Lakota person was responsible for the welfare of all their relatives (Hassrick 1964: 201; DeMallie 1979: 233; Walker 1982: 63-64, 75, 94; Schusky 1986: 68; Albers 1985: 119-20). Social prestige was gained by acts of generosity toward others, not...