This essay examines Dances with Wolves as a historical commentary on westward expansion and U.S. policy toward Native Americans. The paper argues that the film reveals fundamental moral contradictions in American expansion—particularly the government's refusal to coexist with indigenous peoples despite individual soldiers' sympathy for Native cultures. Through Costner's character's impossible position, the essay demonstrates that skin color and cultural differences need not divide people, yet systemic policies made peaceful coexistence impossible. The paper contextualizes these conflicts within the broader history of colonization and concludes that acknowledgment of historical wrongs may be the only viable path toward reconciliation.
Dances with Wolves is a film that clearly illustrates the moral and political dilemmas that existed during the westward expansion era. It represents the United States' aggressive and often savage policy toward Native Americans and those who allied with them. The film also demonstrates that skin color and cultural background alone are insufficient barriers to human connection—as evidenced by Costner's character and the Lakota woman he marries. Yet the film equally makes clear that Costner's character faced an impossible situation: he could not remain with the Sioux despite mutual affection and acceptance. While much has changed since the Civil War era, some patterns of institutional conflict and dispossession persist stubbornly.
Since settlers from Britain, France, Spain, and other European nations arrived in what is now the United States in the late 1400s, two primary motivations drove colonization: the desire to explore and settle new territory, and the need to escape oppression in their home countries. Often, both motivations operated simultaneously. However, these ambitions collided with a fundamental reality: Native Americans were already established on the continent and resisted outsiders who sought to seize or plunder their lands. To be clear, Native Americans were not without fault; they committed acts of violence against one another and against settlers. The conflict depicted in Dances with Wolves between the Pawnee and Sioux nations reflects this internal indigenous warfare. Nevertheless, any honest historical accounting must acknowledge that the United States and its colonial predecessors engaged in deeply unjust and systematic dispossession during this period.
While much of the blatant imperialism and ideology that justified westward expansion has formally ended in the United States, certain structural patterns have endured. First, the military and government apparatus treated all Native Americans as enemies without exception and severely punished anyone who deviated from this stance—whether by sympathizing with indigenous peoples, refusing orders, or abandoning their posts. Even celebrated war heroes were not exempt from this punitive logic. Costner's character, despite his accidental heroism, is branded a traitor for his compassion toward the Sioux, even though his actions involved no rational betrayal of American interests. The justification of "I was just following orders" can excuse only so much institutional cruelty. The pressure to expand westward at all costs overwhelmed any consideration for negotiation or coexistence.
The salient lesson of Dances with Wolves is that the United States government was institutionally incapable of recognizing any perspective that conflicted with the seizure of indigenous lands. The government refused to work with Native Americans in any meaningful capacity, even when its own soldiers and citizens sympathized with indigenous cultures and peoples. While much of the hostility directed at Native Americans was rooted in ideological justification and economic interest, the historical reality remains: indigenous peoples occupied these lands first and defended themselves according to the same survival logic—"kill or be killed"—that the government imposed upon them. The policy of removal and dispossession was neither accidental nor incidental, but deliberate.
"Government's institutional inability to coexist with indigenous nations"
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.