Who Was Crazy Horse? The Lakota War Leader Whose Refusal to Surrender Became Legend

In the early morning hours of September 5, 1877, at Fort Robinson in northwestern Nebraska, a Lakota war leader named Crazy Horse (Tȟašúŋke Witkó) was bayoneted by a soldier while allegedly resisting imprisonment. He died that evening, approximately thirty-six years old, having spent his entire adult life defending Lakota lands and ways of life against American expansion. Unlike many Native leaders who eventually negotiated with or surrendered to U.S. authorities, Crazy Horse never signed a treaty, never lived on a reservation by choice, and never accepted the inevitability of American conquest—making his violent death while in custody seem grimly appropriate to a life defined by uncompromising resistance.

But Crazy Horse’s significance extends far beyond his refusal to accommodate American demands. He was one of the most tactically brilliant Native American military leaders, achieving victories against U.S. forces that few others matched—most famously at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876, where he helped annihilate George Armstrong Custer’s Seventh Cavalry. His leadership combined deep spiritual commitment to Lakota traditions with practical military genius, inspiring followers through personal courage and tactical innovation rather than hereditary authority or political maneuvering.

Understanding Crazy Horse matters because his life illuminates the Lakota perspective on the catastrophic nineteenth century—when the vast buffalo-rich plains that had sustained Lakota culture for generations were invaded by American miners, soldiers, and settlers; when treaties promising Lakota territory “for as long as grass shall grow and water flow” were broken within years; and when the U.S. government pursued policies designed to eliminate Lakota culture either through forced assimilation or physical destruction. His resistance wasn’t irrational defiance but calculated defense of everything that made Lakota life meaningful against enemies determined to destroy it.

This comprehensive exploration examines Crazy Horse’s life within Lakota cultural context, analyzes his military campaigns and the tactical brilliance that made him legendary, explores the disastrous consequences of broken treaties and American expansion for the Lakota people, and considers his complex legacy as both historical figure and enduring symbol of indigenous resistance.

The Lakota World and Crazy Horse’s Formation

The Lakota Sioux: A Nation of the Plains

To understand Crazy Horse, you need to grasp the Lakota world he defended. The Lakota (or Teton Sioux) were one of three major divisions of the Sioux nation (along with Dakota and Nakota), themselves divided into seven bands including the Oglala (Crazy Horse’s band), Hunkpapa, Minneconjou, and others.

By the mid-19th century, the Lakota dominated the northern Great Plains—a vast grassland region stretching from present-day Minnesota westward to the Rocky Mountains. This dominance was relatively recent, achieved through military prowess, strategic alliances, and adaptation to horse culture that transformed Lakota society.

The Lakota lifestyle centered on:

Buffalo Dependence: The massive buffalo herds provided nearly everything—food, clothing, shelter (tipis made from hides), tools (bones and horns), fuel (dried dung). Lakota culture, economy, and spirituality all revolved around buffalo.

Nomadic Mobility: Following buffalo herds required frequent movement. The introduction of horses (acquired from Spanish territories by the 1700s) dramatically increased Lakota mobility and military effectiveness.

Warrior Culture: Lakota society highly valued martial prowess. Young men gained status through warfare—both raids against enemy tribes (Crow, Pawnee, Shoshone) and later against American forces. Courage in battle, success in capturing horses, and accumulating coup (touching enemies without killing them) brought honor and social standing.

Spiritual Traditions: Lakota spirituality emphasized connection with nature, vision quests for spiritual guidance, Sun Dance ceremonies, and belief in Wakan Tanka (the Great Mystery or Great Spirit). Spiritual power and military success were interconnected—warriors sought visions that would protect them in battle.

Decentralized Political Organization: Unlike European monarchies or even some Native American confederacies, Lakota bands operated with considerable autonomy. Leaders emerged through demonstrated ability rather than rigid hereditary succession, and individuals and families could freely join or leave bands.

This was the world Crazy Horse was born into—a culture at its height of power and prosperity, not yet understanding that American expansion would destroy the buffalo herds and with them the entire Lakota way of life.

Birth and Early Life (c. 1840–1850s)

Crazy Horse was born around 1840 (exact date uncertain) among the Oglala Lakota near the Black Hills in present-day South Dakota. His birth name was Cha-O-Ha (“In the Wilderness” or “Among the Trees”), though some sources give different early names.

His family background provided strong foundations:

Father: Also named Crazy Horse (Tȟašúŋke Witkó), a respected wičháša wakȟáŋ (holy man) who conducted ceremonies and provided spiritual guidance to the Oglala. When his son earned the name through a vision, the father took the name Worm to allow his son to carry Crazy Horse.

Mother: Rattling Blanket Woman, from the Miniconjou band of Lakota. She died when Crazy Horse was young, and his father later married her sister, maintaining family connections.

Physical Appearance: Contemporary descriptions note that Crazy Horse had unusually light-colored hair and pale complexion for a Lakota, leading to childhood teasing and possibly contributing to his serious, introverted personality. Some accounts suggest he had wavy rather than straight hair, marking him as different from typical Lakota appearance.

Childhood Training: Like all Lakota boys, Crazy Horse learned horsemanship, hunting, tracking, and warfare skills from an early age. His father also trained him in spiritual matters, though Crazy Horse would achieve prominence primarily as a warrior rather than holy man.

The Vision Quest and Earning the Name

Around age thirteen (approximately 1853–1854), following a traumatic event, Crazy Horse undertook a vision quest that would define his identity and approach to warfare.

The context was violence: Crazy Horse witnessed a confrontation between Lakota people and U.S. soldiers following a dispute over a cow near Fort Laramie. The incident escalated into the Grattan Massacre (1854), where an inexperienced U.S. lieutenant led a small force to arrest a Lakota man over a killed cow. The confrontation turned violent; the soldiers and the Lakota chief Conquering Bear were killed. This early exposure to the arbitrary violence of American military power apparently profoundly affected the young Crazy Horse.

The vision quest involved fasting, isolation, and seeking spiritual guidance. According to accounts, Crazy Horse received a powerful vision:

He saw himself riding a horse through a storm, bullets and arrows passing harmlessly around him, untouched by enemy weapons. A man resembling him rode beside him, showing him that he would be protected in battle if he remained humble, never took scalps, never took captured property for himself, and prepared properly through sacred rituals before battle.

This vision shaped his entire warrior career: Crazy Horse followed these prescriptions, going into battle with minimal adornment (in contrast to heavily decorated warriors), scattering dust over himself and his horse, and placing a single hawk feather in his hair rather than elaborate war bonnets. His apparent invulnerability in numerous battles—he was never wounded seriously despite being in the forefront of fighting—reinforced Lakota belief in his spiritual power.

Following this vision, he earned the name Crazy Horse from his father, who took the name Worm to allow his son to carry the more powerful name. “Crazy Horse” doesn’t refer to mental instability but rather to a particularly spirited, wild, uncontrollable horse—suggesting untamed power and freedom.

Coming of Age in a Changing World (1850s–1860s)

Crazy Horse matured during a period of escalating tension between Lakota people and American expansion:

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851): This treaty attempted to define territorial boundaries for various Plains tribes and establish peace. The Lakota agreed to allow safe passage for American travelers and settlers moving west (particularly to Oregon and California). In exchange, the U.S. promised to respect Lakota territorial boundaries and provide annual payments.

But tensions mounted: Gold discoveries in Montana and Colorado brought floods of miners through Lakota territory. The U.S. government demanded road and fort-building rights. Conflicts between Lakota bands and travelers increased.

Crazy Horse participated in traditional Lakota warfare during this period—raids against enemy tribes like the Crow and Pawnee, capturing horses, gaining battle experience, and building his reputation as a skilled warrior.

By his early twenties, Crazy Horse had established himself as an exceptionally capable warrior with apparent spiritual protection, attracting followers who wanted to fight alongside someone seemingly blessed with supernatural invulnerability.

The Escalating Conflict (1860s–1870s)

Red Cloud’s War and the Bozeman Trail (1866–1868)

The discovery of gold in Montana created pressure for a direct route through Lakota territory—the Bozeman Trail. The U.S. military began building forts along this trail despite Lakota opposition, triggering what became known as Red Cloud’s War.

Crazy Horse distinguished himself during this conflict, particularly in the Fetterman Fight (December 21, 1866):

Captain William Fetterman, commanding approximately eighty soldiers, pursued a small group of Lakota warriors (including Crazy Horse) who appeared to be attacking wood-cutting parties near Fort Phil Kearny. The warriors were actually decoys, leading Fetterman’s forces into an ambush where over 1,000 Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors were hidden.

Crazy Horse’s role in the decoy party—riding back and forth just out of rifle range, appearing vulnerable, luring Fetterman further from the fort—demonstrated the tactical sophistication that would characterize his military leadership. The ambush annihilated Fetterman’s entire command, one of the worst U.S. military defeats up to that point.

Red Cloud’s War eventually forced the U.S. to negotiate: The Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) closed the Bozeman Trail, abandoned the forts, and established the Great Sioux Reservation including the Black Hills, promising it would belong to the Lakota “for as long as grass shall grow and water flow.”

But Crazy Horse apparently didn’t participate in these negotiations and may have been skeptical of treaty-making from the beginning, preferring to maintain freedom to hunt and live traditionally rather than accept reservation boundaries or American supervision.

The Black Hills and Broken Promises

The Black Hills (Pahá Sápa in Lakota) held profound spiritual and practical significance for the Lakota. These mountains were sacred—the “heart of everything that is,” where warriors went for vision quests and where numerous spirits dwelled. The hills also provided shelter, timber, and game.

The 1868 treaty explicitly placed the Black Hills within the Great Sioux Reservation, off-limits to American settlement. For a few years, this arrangement held.

But in 1874, the U.S. Army sent an expedition into the Black Hills led by George Armstrong Custer. The official purpose was reconnaissance; the actual purpose was surveying for gold. When the expedition reported finding gold, prospectors flooded into the Black Hills despite treaty provisions.

The U.S. government’s response revealed how little treaties meant: Rather than removing illegal miners and enforcing the treaty, authorities attempted to purchase the Black Hills from the Lakota. When Lakota leaders refused to sell sacred lands, the U.S. decided to take them anyway.

In 1876, the government issued an ultimatum: All Lakota must report to designated agencies (proto-reservations) by January 31, 1876. Those who didn’t would be considered hostile and subject to military action.

This deadline was impossible and probably deliberately so—in mid-winter, with people scattered across vast territories, many Lakota never received the message. Those who did couldn’t travel to agencies through deep snow with families and possessions. The deadline provided legal justification for military campaigns against “hostile” Lakota who were simply living traditionally in territories the 1868 treaty had guaranteed them.

Crazy Horse, by 1876, was among those labeled “hostile”—living freely in unceded territories, hunting buffalo, and refusing to accept agency supervision. He became a primary target for military campaigns designed to force all Lakota onto reservations.

The Great Sioux War of 1876

The Campaign Begins

The U.S. military planned a multi-pronged campaign to converge on “hostile” Lakota and Northern Cheyenne bands, force them onto reservations, or destroy them:

General George Crook moving north from Fort Fetterman (Wyoming) General John Gibbon moving east from Fort Ellis (Montana)
General Alfred Terry (with Colonel Custer’s Seventh Cavalry) moving west from Fort Abraham Lincoln (Dakota Territory)

The strategy assumed that the combined forces could trap the “hostiles” between converging columns and force capitulation.

But the Lakota and Cheyenne were more numerous and better organized than anticipated. Crazy Horse and other leaders had united their bands—perhaps 10,000-15,000 people total, including 2,000-3,000 warriors—recognizing that only through unity could they resist the military campaign.

The Battle of the Rosebud (June 17, 1876)

General Crook’s column, moving north, was attacked by Crazy Horse and approximately 1,000-1,500 Lakota and Cheyenne warriors along the Rosebud Creek in Montana.

The battle demonstrated Crazy Horse’s tactical sophistication: Rather than the traditional Native American approach of individual heroics and loosely coordinated charges, Crazy Horse organized his warriors into groups that attacked in waves, used terrain for cover, and maintained coordinated pressure on different parts of Crook’s forces simultaneously.

Crook claimed victory because he held the battlefield when fighting ended. But strategically, it was a Native victory—Crook’s forces suffered significant casualties, his advance was halted, and he retreated southward to reorganize rather than continuing to press forward. This meant Crook’s column wouldn’t arrive to support Custer at the Little Bighorn eight days later.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn (June 25-26, 1876)

The Battle of the Little Bighorn—called the Battle of the Greasy Grass by Lakota people—stands as the most famous engagement of the Indian Wars and Crazy Horse’s greatest military triumph.

The situation: A massive village of Lakota and Cheyenne people (perhaps 7,000-8,000 individuals) was camped along the Little Bighorn River in Montana. Custer’s Seventh Cavalry, approximately 600 soldiers, approached the village on June 25.

Custer’s decisions proved catastrophic: He divided his forces into three battalions, refused to wait for supporting columns, and attacked immediately despite his scouts warning about the village’s enormous size. Custer personally led about 210 men in an attack on the village center.

Crazy Horse’s role in the battle remains debated in details but clear in outline:

When Custer’s forces attacked, Crazy Horse was reportedly in his tipi or at the far end of the village. Upon hearing gunfire and the alarm, he rallied warriors and led a counter-attack that helped surround and overwhelm Custer’s battalion.

Accounts describe Crazy Horse riding through the battle encouraging warriors, leading charges, and demonstrating the tactical coordination that characterized his leadership. Rather than warriors acting independently for personal glory, Crazy Horse organized coordinated assaults that systematically overwhelmed the outnumbered soldiers.

The result was complete: Custer and all soldiers in his immediate command were killed. Two other battalions commanded by Reno and Benteen survived by taking defensive positions, but suffered heavy casualties.

The victory was total and unprecedented—the complete annihilation of a U.S. cavalry command shocked the American public and military. It demonstrated that well-led, numerically superior Native forces could decisively defeat U.S. military units, even cavalry with modern weapons.

Aftermath and Pursuit

Rather than leading to Lakota victory, Little Bighorn triggered intensified American determination to defeat the “hostiles”:

Public Outrage: The U.S. press portrayed Custer (who had actually blundered into disaster) as a martyred hero and the Lakota as savage enemies requiring extermination.

Military Reinforcement: The U.S. Army poured additional troops into the campaign, determined to force all Lakota onto reservations.

Economic Warfare: The military pursued a strategy of destroying buffalo herds (the foundation of Lakota economy) and burning Lakota camps and food supplies, making traditional life unsustainable.

Winter Campaigns: Rather than respecting traditional winter cessation of warfare, the U.S. Army pursued year-round campaigns, attacking Lakota camps when people were most vulnerable.

Crazy Horse spent the following months evading pursuing forces, moving his band constantly, facing increasing hardship as buffalo became scarce and military pressure mounted. Other Lakota leaders began surrendering as continuing resistance became untenable.

Surrender and Death (1877)

The Decision to Surrender

By spring 1877, Crazy Horse faced impossible circumstances:

Food Scarcity: Buffalo herds had been decimated by commercial hunting and military strategy. His people were starving.

Constant Pursuit: Multiple Army columns pursued him relentlessly. His band couldn’t rest or establish secure camps.

Surrender of Others: Other leaders including Sitting Bull (who fled to Canada) and many others had surrendered or sought refuge. Crazy Horse’s band was increasingly isolated.

Winter Hardship: The winter of 1876-1877 was particularly harsh. Women, children, and elderly in his band suffered terribly.

On May 6, 1877, Crazy Horse surrendered at Fort Robinson (Red Cloud Agency) in Nebraska. He led approximately 800 followers—about 200 warriors and 600 women, children, and elderly—in a formal surrender procession that witnesses described as both dignified and heartbreaking.

Crazy Horse’s surrender represented more than personal defeat—it symbolized the end of independent Lakota life on the plains. The last major leader who had never signed a treaty, never accepted reservation life, had been forced to submit.

Life at the Agency (May–September 1877)

The four months Crazy Horse spent at Red Cloud Agency were characterized by tension, miscommunication, and increasing paranoia on all sides:

Military Suspicion: U.S. officers feared Crazy Horse’s influence among Lakota people and worried he might lead a breakout back to traditional life.

Lakota Politics: Other Lakota leaders at the agency (particularly those who had been U.S. allies or scouts) resented Crazy Horse’s prominence and spread rumors about his intentions, possibly hoping to undermine a rival.

Cultural Misunderstanding: Communication occurred through interpreters who sometimes mistranslated deliberately or incompetently. Crazy Horse’s actions were filtered through people who didn’t understand Lakota culture or had reasons to portray him negatively.

Crazy Horse apparently struggled with reservation life—the confinement, the corruption of Indian agents, the prohibition on traditional practices, the presence of U.S. soldiers. According to accounts, he told friends he felt like he was dying, being slowly suffocated by the restrictions.

Rumors circulated that Crazy Horse planned to leave the agency, possibly to join Sitting Bull in Canada, possibly to resume resistance. Whether these rumors had any factual basis remains debated—some historians believe Crazy Horse was genuinely planning to leave; others think the rumors were manufactured by enemies who wanted him removed.

The Arrest and Death (September 5, 1877)

On September 4, 1877, General Crook ordered Crazy Horse’s arrest, believing (based on possibly false reports) that he was planning to flee or lead a rebellion.

On September 5, Crazy Horse was brought to Fort Robinson under the pretext of a meeting with the military commander. When he realized he was being taken to a guardhouse (essentially a cell) rather than a meeting, he resisted.

What happened next is disputed in details:

• A struggle ensued with Crazy Horse attempting to leave
• A soldier (probably Private William Gentles) bayoneted Crazy Horse, piercing his kidney
• Whether Crazy Horse drew a knife during the struggle remains contested—some accounts say yes, others say no or that he had already been wounded before drawing a knife
• Some accounts claim that Touch the Clouds (a fellow Lakota leader) or other Lakota present tried to intervene

Crazy Horse was carried to the adjutant’s office where he lay dying on the floor. His father and other Lakota leaders were summoned. According to accounts, Crazy Horse refused medical treatment, knowing the wound was fatal.

He died late that evening, approximately 36 years old. His last reported words (possibly through an interpreter) were: “Tell the people it is no use to depend on me anymore now.”

Burial and the Mystery of His Grave

Crazy Horse’s parents took his body from Fort Robinson, reportedly intent on burying him according to traditional Lakota practices in a secret location.

The exact burial site remains unknown—various locations have been claimed but never confirmed. This mystery is deliberate—Lakota people wanted to protect Crazy Horse’s grave from desecration by souvenir hunters or trophy seekers.

The secrecy reflects Lakota values about respecting the dead and their belief that Crazy Horse’s spirit should rest undisturbed. The unknown grave has become part of his legend—he remains out of American control even in death.

Legacy and Historical Significance

Symbol of Resistance

Crazy Horse became an enduring symbol of Native American resistance to conquest and forced assimilation:

Never Signed a Treaty: Unlike virtually every other major Native leader, Crazy Horse never signed any agreement with the U.S. government, never accepted reservation boundaries voluntarily, never accommodated American demands.

Military Success: His victories, particularly at Little Bighorn, demonstrated that Native forces could defeat U.S. military power under the right circumstances and leadership.

Spiritual Power: The combination of tactical brilliance and apparent spiritual protection made him a figure of almost mythic proportions in his own lifetime.

Tragic End: His death while in custody, whether murder or preventable death during arrest, symbolizes the tragic fate of leaders who resisted accommodation.

The Crazy Horse Memorial

In the Black Hills, the Crazy Horse Memorial—a massive mountain carving depicting Crazy Horse on horseback—has been under construction since 1948. When completed, it will be the world’s largest mountain carving (over 500 feet tall and 600 feet long).

The memorial is controversial:

Lakota Perspectives: Many Lakota people oppose it, noting that Crazy Horse refused to be photographed and would likely have opposed a giant monument. Some view it as a desecration of sacred Black Hills lands. Others support it as a symbol of Native pride.

Cultural Appropriation: The memorial was initiated by non-Native sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski, raising questions about who has authority to represent Native leaders and culture.

Commercial Tourism: The memorial operates as a tourist attraction, which some see as exploitation of Crazy Horse’s memory for profit.

The debate reflects broader questions about how to honor Native American leaders, who controls their legacy, and whether monumental sculpture is an appropriate way to remember someone who lived and died resisting American cultural imposition.

Historical Challenges and Debates

Understanding Crazy Horse faces significant challenges:

Limited First-Hand Sources: Crazy Horse never learned to read or write, refused to be photographed, and left no letters or documents. What we know comes from others’ accounts—sometimes by people who barely knew him, sometimes by enemies, filtered through interpreters and cultural barriers.

Mythologization: Even during his lifetime, Crazy Horse became legendary. Distinguishing historical fact from exaggeration or invention proves difficult.

Political Uses: Both Native activists and American nationalist narratives have used Crazy Horse’s story for political purposes, sometimes distorting historical reality to serve contemporary agendas.

The “Noble Savage” Trap: Some portrayals idealize Crazy Horse to the point of denying his humanity—presenting him as purely heroic figure without acknowledging he was a complex person who made choices that sometimes harmed others.

The Broader Context of Lakota Catastrophe

Crazy Horse’s story must be understood within the demographic and cultural catastrophe that American expansion inflicted on Lakota people:

Population Collapse: Lakota population declined from perhaps 25,000-30,000 in 1850 to fewer than 15,000 by 1900 through warfare, disease, and forced relocation.

Buffalo Extermination: The buffalo herds that numbered in the tens of millions in 1850 were reduced to fewer than 1,000 by 1890—destroyed through commercial hunting and deliberate military policy to eliminate the economic foundation of Plains cultures.

Cultural Suppression: Systematic policies banned traditional religion, forced children into boarding schools designed to eliminate Native culture, prohibited speaking Lakota language, and criminalized traditional practices.

Land Theft: The Black Hills, guaranteed by treaty, were taken. The Great Sioux Reservation was progressively reduced through further treaties and eventually broken into small reservations.

Economic Dependence: Forced onto reservations, unable to hunt buffalo or practice traditional subsistence, Lakota people became dependent on government rations that were often inadequate or withheld.

Crazy Horse’s resistance was ultimately futile not because he lacked courage or tactical skill but because the forces against him—demographic, economic, technological, and institutional—were overwhelming. His surrender and death marked the end of independent Lakota life on the plains.

Conclusion: The Warrior Who Would Never Surrender Until He Had No Choice

Crazy Horse lived his entire adult life defending everything that made Lakota life meaningful—the freedom to roam the plains following buffalo, the spiritual connection to sacred lands, the warrior culture that defined masculine identity, and the autonomy to live according to traditions passed down through generations. He achieved military victories that few Native leaders could match, demonstrated tactical brilliance that confounded conventional U.S. military operations, and inspired followers through personal courage and apparent spiritual protection.

Yet his story ends in defeat—not because he lacked ability or determination but because the demographic, economic, and technological advantages of American expansion proved overwhelming. Buffalo herds were exterminated, making traditional life impossible. Military forces pursued relentlessly, attacking camps in winter when people were most vulnerable. The reservation system offered only starvation, cultural destruction, and slow death, yet continuing resistance meant watching families suffer through winters without adequate food or shelter.

His surrender in 1877 represented recognition of unbearable circumstances rather than personal failure. His death four months later—whether murder or preventable death during arrest—symbolizes the fate of those who resisted longest: not honored for courage or accommodated in defeat, but eliminated as inconvenient obstacles to American expansion.

For contemporary understanding, Crazy Horse’s story challenges comfortable narratives about the American West. His resistance illuminates the violent reality of “settling” lands that were already home to peoples with their own cultures, spiritual traditions, and legitimate claims to territory. His military victories demonstrate that Native defeat wasn’t inevitable or natural but rather the product of overwhelming advantages that had nothing to do with moral superiority or cultural advancement.

His legacy remains contested—symbol of resistance for some, romanticized “noble savage” for others, historical figure whose actual complexity gets lost in simplified narratives. Understanding him requires recognizing that he was neither superhuman hero nor simple victim but rather a fully human person who faced impossible circumstances with remarkable courage while making choices that sometimes harmed others in service of defending his people.

Nearly 150 years after his death, Crazy Horse endures in memory not because he achieved final victory—he didn’t—but because his refusal to surrender until circumstances left no choice represents a profound statement about resistance, dignity, and the value of fighting for what makes life meaningful even when victory seems impossible. The warrior who would never sign a treaty, never accept reservation life voluntarily, never be photographed, and whose grave remains unknown offers enduring testament to indigenous resistance against cultural destruction and the bitter costs of conquest that shaped the American West.

Additional Resources

For readers interested in deeper engagement with Crazy Horse and Lakota history:

• Larry McMurtry’s Crazy Horse (Penguin Lives, 2005) provides a concise, thoughtful biography that acknowledges the challenges of reconstructing Crazy Horse’s life while avoiding both romanticization and reductionism, written by an author with deep knowledge of Western history.
• The Journey Museum and Learning Center in Rapid City, South Dakota, offers exhibits on Lakota history and culture developed in consultation with Lakota people, providing perspectives that foreground indigenous voices and experiences.

Check out our sister sites at Curious Fox Learning.