INTRODUCTION

The Choctaw people originally inhabited lands in what are now parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They are acknowledged as the most populous group of the tribes classified as Muskogean speaking (Debo, 1961).  Debo also describes the Choctaw as agricultural, growing mainly corn, pumpkins, beans and melons. Their farming methods created such levels of efficiency and success that, with less land, they outproduced their neighbors. DeRoiser (1970) concurs that of the tribes east of the Mississippi River, the Choctaws were one of the largest and most advanced tribes. He extols the Choctaw political structure as democratic and efficient. His speculation includes that in the Choctaw, the arriving Europeans encountered “a proud and powerful race, stable, democratic, and economically sound” (p.13). Such population and economic prominence would have made Choctaw language important for communication throughout the area in and surrounding their original homelands. This influence was recognized by the French as early as the 1720s, in Louisiana, who regarded Choctaw language as the most universal and extensive (Crawford, 1978).  However, the lessening of prominence for both the Choctaw people and their language was greatly expedited by United States (US) federal government agendas and policies.

Removal from their homelands was one of the most decisive blows to Choctaw language and culture.  This was sparked by a series of land cessation treaties from 1801-1830.  The first Choctaw/US treaty to relinquish land was the Treaty of Fort Adams (1801) which ceded approximately 2.5 million acres for the creation of a road from Nashville, TN, to Natchez, MS (Pate, 2017).  The idea of relocating Indians residing east of the Mississippi is recorded as early as the administration of President Thomas Jefferson.  In a letter to William Henry Harrison, Jefferson (1803) outlines a plan by which the United State could gain influence over and lands from tribes residing east of the Mississippi. One tactic mentioned included encouraging Indian leaders to incur exorbitant debt at federally owned trading houses. They then could be induced to trade land in payment of the arrears. Use of this ploy can be seen in the Treaty of Hoe Buckintoopa (1803) and the Treaty of Mount Dexter (1805).   In 1820, the Treaty of Doak’s Stand saw Choctaw lands exchanged for lands in Arkansas and Indian country.  DeRoiser (1970) states that “the Treaty of Doak’s Stand, ‘the first treaty embodying steps toward removal west and the actual assignment of lands in the Indian territory’ (Linquist) foreshadowed the removal and degradation of all Indians” (p. 69).   A decade later, the US federal goal to annex the whole of Choctaw original homelands was realized. Almost immediately after the passage of the contentious Indian Removal Bill in May of 1830, President Andrew Jackson and his secretary of war, General John Easton devised plans to meet with Indian delegates regarding removal (Foreman, 1972).  Subsequently, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830) was signed September 28th . In the treaty provisions, two choices for Choctaw tribal members were outlined.  Those who wished to remain could accept a land allotment in Mississippi and thereby accept citizenship from the United States.  For the Choctaw uninterested in becoming American, the US government would provide travel accommodations to and equipment for farming in lands west of the Mississippi (modern day Oklahoma). Thereby, a schism of the Choctaw and, subsequently, their language was initiated.  For those who moved west, further decimation would occur. The combined forces of government inefficiency and natural disasters such as blizzards and epidemics caused significant loss of life and resulted in a permanent decrease of Choctaw population (Debo, 1961).

Governmental annexation and administration of Native school systems served as another tool in dismantling tribal nations, cultures, and languages. For the Choctaw people, formal education settings were initiated by their leaders and assisted by missionaries. The famous Choctaw politician, Pushmataha, is said to have suggested in 1816 the setting aside money from land cessation annuities for educating tribal children.  It is speculated that he thought engaging with white man’s education would enable Choctaws to keep their independence, lands in Mississippi, and racial identity (Morrison, 2016).  Notable Choctaw families such as the Folsoms, Le Flores, and Pitchlynns reportedly had similar sentiments.  Debo theorizes that they “felt that the only hope for their people lay in education and the adoption of civilized institutions” (1961 p. 42). Thus, missionaries were invited, and the first school opened at the Eliot Station in April of 1819. Eventually, over twenty neighborhood schools operated in Choctaw lands east of Mississippi (York, 2012).  These educational endeavors, as were all Choctaw institutions, were thrown into shock and disorder by removal.  After serious consideration by missionaries and their overseeing boards, several decided to eventually follow the Choctaw west of the Mississippi (Morrison, 2016). As the Choctaw settled into their new territory, school systems were quickly reestablished.  Debo (1961) relates that by 1836, missionaries of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions reported the existence of eleven schools with over 200 Choctaw students enrolled.  Then, in 1842, the tribal council sanctioned the establishment of a comprehensive school system. This led to the formation of nine tribally-funded boarding schools by 1848. The partnership between Choctaw leaders and missionaries was the impetuous for the written version of Choctaw. Choctaw students were taught in both Choctaw and English. In 1825, the first book in Choctaw and English, A Spelling Book, was printed (York, 2012). As a result of many tribal members becoming literate, many materials were printed in the Choctaw language including religious materials, newspapers, almanacs, and political advertisements (Broadwell, 2006).  By 1843, the printing press at Park Hill (located within the Cherokee Nation) had generated almost a million pages in the Choctaw language (Morrison, 2016).

Originally thought to dovetail with their assimilation policy, the US officials became disenchanted with formal education institutions overseen by the missionaries and tribal leaders.  One of the critiques was that the missionaries were teaching students in their native tongues. Therefore, in 1880, the Indian Bureau mandated that schools must give all instruction in English or risk losing their government funding. But some missionaries were adamant that Native students would have greater success if first taught in their native tongue.  The Board of Indian Commissioners received testament from a Dr. Alden who stated:

Our missionaries feel very decidedly on this point, and that is as to their work in the teaching of         English. They believe that it can be better done by using Dakota also…it is true that by beginning     in the Indian tongue and then putting the students into English studies our missionaries say that              after three or four years their English is better than it would have been if they had begun entirely        with English. (as cited in Reyhner & Elder, 2004, p.79)

Some missionaries specific to the Choctaw seemed to have concurred with Dr. Alden and disregarded the federal decrees. Henry Halbert, a Catholic missionary and teacher to the Choctaws in Mississippi, is documented as using a bilingual educational approach as late as 1894. In a letter, he remarks on the students’ strong preference of Choctaw for learning and the quickness with which they picked up reading and writing in it (York, 2012).

Those who did support and perhaps spurred such government edicts included J.D.C. Atkins, Commissioner of Indians Affairs 1885-1888, and Captain Richard Pratt, founder of the first government-operated boarding school (Carlisle Indian Industrial School). Atkins wrote in an 1887 report that “The instruction of the Indians in the [native] vernacular is not only of no use to them, but is detrimental to the cause of their education and civilization, and no school will be permitted on the reservation in which the English language is not exclusively taught” (as cited in Reyhner & Eder,2004 p.77). Pratt also scorned the missionaries’ bilingual approach. He describes missionaries and their work as such:

The missionary goes to the Indian; he learns the language; he associates with him; he makes the           Indian feel he is friendly, and has great desire to help him; he even teaches the Indian English.          But the fruits of his [the missionary] labor, by all the examples that I know, have been to                        strengthen and encourage him [the Indian] to remain separate and apart from the rest of us. (Pratt,          1892, para. 16)

Instead, Pratt espouses an approach to engagement with Natives as follows:

A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his   destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with           the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man. (1892, para. 1)

Thus, the English-only regulations were often enforced on students in a strict manner, including harsh physical punishments (Reyhner & Eder 2004).

It was this educational landscape into which the Choctaw Nation schools were annexed by the Department of the Interior.  These schools had evaded the control of federal officials until 1899. The change inadvertently came as Choctaw leaders sought to secure funding for their schools. A provision of the Atoka Agreement of 1897 directed that tribal income from coal and asphalt leases be sent to the United Stated treasury and allocated for schools in Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Ethan Allen Hitchcock, then Secretary of the Interior, felt this gave him the latitude to bring the tribal schools under federal control. (Morrison, 2016).  Subsequently, John D. Benedict was appointed as superintendent of the schools in Indian Territory.  He denounced focus on cultural subjects as unsound and unsuitable and instead favored vocational training for Choctaw education (Debo, 1961). Less than a decade later, the educational administration for the majority of Choctaw students would change hands again. With Oklahoma statehood in 1907 and the simultaneous dissolution of tribal governments, Choctaw neighborhood schools were discontinued. Many former students, teachers, and buildings of the Choctaw Nation were incorporated into the state school system. (Morrison, 2016)

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 instigated physical and geographic separation of tribal and language communities.  The diaspora of Native people continued to grow and was furthered by the Indian Relocation Act of 1956. Some regard the post WWII era as one in which white Americans reaped the benefits of the post war economy and left their minority counterparts far behind (US history primary source timeline: The postwar United States 1945-1968, overview, n.d.). However, a contrasting view is that Choctaw communities eschewed economic pursuits in favor of clinging to their cultural traditions and identity. To observers judging by 1950s Western values and standards, the tribal lifestyle seemed socially and economically appalling and degrading (Debo as cited in Kidwell, 2007). During this time, the US government agenda was one of complete assimilation of Native people and termination of tribal governments (Gaede, n.d.).  As Indian land trusts were being extinguished and tribal assets dispersed, the issue of what do with Natives arose. Perhaps perceived as in need of economic and cultural rehabilitation, the Native population was aggressively recruited for federally-sponsored job training and relocation programs. These programs sought to take young Natives out of their rural traditional communities and place them in large cities for training and employment. In the 1940s, 56% of white Americans were living and working in urban areas, compared to 6% of the Indian population. By the 1970s, the proportion of Native people living in cities had skyrocketed to half. (Treur, 2019).  Specific to the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, a 2011 Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission reported only about 38% of CNO members lived within Oklahoma, much less the section designated as the Choctaw reservation or service area (2011 Oklahoma Indian nations: Pocket pictorial directory, 2011). Furthermore, the relocation programs hastened the decimation of Native languages as tribal members were largely surrounded by non-Indian people or those from other tribes.  As tribal members forged new lives in the urban setting, inter-tribal and inter-racial relationships formed (Treur, 2019). English would have served as a communicative common ground for these emerging communities, relegating tribal languages to the background.