Yes, it can seem contradictory. Richard Henry Pratt is credited with one of the first recorded uses of the term “racism” in 1902. He spoke of “destroying racism” as he advocated for the integration of Native Americans into American society through assimilation. While Pratt’s use of “racism” indicated his opposition to strict racial segregation, his methods and beliefs have since been widely criticized as culturally destructive and inherently racist  .

Pratt’s ideology was shaped by the prevailing beliefs of his time. He considered Native American cultures to be “savage” and inferior, so he sought to forcibly “civilize” Native youth by erasing their cultural identities—a perspective rooted in cultural superiority and ethnocentrism. His statement, “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man,” is now seen as a form of cultural genocide, reflecting a paternalistic view that indigenous cultures needed to be obliterated for their members to be “saved” or “improved.” This philosophy was inherently racist because it imposed a belief in the superiority of Euro-American culture over indigenous traditions  .

In summary, while Pratt used the term “racism” to speak against racial exclusion, his own views on cultural assimilation were deeply problematic. His actions and policies reflected a type of racism that sought to eradicate Native American cultural identity and force conformity to Euro-American norms. His legacy highlights the complexities and contradictions in early 20th-century attitudes toward race and assimilation.

Richard Henry Pratt’s statement, “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man,” reflects his belief that Native American cultural identity was incompatible with American societal success. Pratt, who founded the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in 1879, was motivated by the idea that Native Americans needed to abandon their traditional customs and adopt Euro-American culture to survive and prosper. His approach was based on several key motivations:

1. Assimilationist Belief

Pratt viewed assimilation as the only path for Native Americans to succeed within American society. He believed that by erasing indigenous cultural practices, languages, and traditions, Native Americans could integrate as “civilized” members of the nation. His philosophy stemmed from the prevalent 19th-century view that Euro-American culture was superior and that indigenous cultures were “savage” and outdated. He once likened his assimilation approach to a form of religious conversion, saying, “I am a Baptist because I believe in immersing the Indians in our civilization and holding them there until they are thoroughly soaked.” This reveals his perception that cultural transformation could only be achieved through total immersion in Euro-American ways  .

2. Civilizing Mission

Like many of his contemporaries, Pratt saw his work as part of a broader “civilizing mission”—the idea that it was the duty of Euro-Americans to “uplift” and “civilize” other cultures. He believed that forcing Native Americans to adopt Western cultural practices would ultimately benefit them. This paternalistic view was common among officials at the time, who felt justified in using coercive measures to achieve these goals. For example, at Carlisle, students were prohibited from speaking their native languages, had their hair cut, and were given English names, all with the intent of making them conform to Euro-American societal norms  .

3. Military Influence

Pratt’s military background also influenced his philosophy. He had served in the U.S. Army during the Indian Wars, which contributed to his perception of Native Americans through the lens of control and discipline. His experience supervising Native prisoners at Fort Marion in Florida led him to believe that removing Native Americans from their environments and subjecting them to structured, regimented systems would “reform” them. He modeled the Carlisle school after military training, emphasizing order, discipline, and uniformity as tools to erase Native identities and replace them with Euro-American ideals  .

4. Social Darwinism and Racial Views

Pratt’s views were also shaped by the racial ideologies of his time, which often included elements of Social Darwinism. Although Pratt was opposed to explicit segregation and believed in the possibility of racial improvement through assimilation, he viewed Native American culture as an obstacle that needed to be overcome. His approach reflected a belief in the superiority of Western civilization, a view that justified coercive assimilation as a “necessary” means to bring Native Americans into the modern world. This philosophy was intertwined with racial prejudices that deemed indigenous cultures as primitive or inferior  .

5. Economic and Political Motives

Additionally, the U.S. government and society saw Native American assimilation as a way to facilitate access to tribal lands and resources. By promoting assimilation, policymakers hoped to eliminate the need for reservations and reduce the government’s obligations to Native tribes. Assimilationist education was therefore not only a social mission but also a strategy to weaken tribal cohesion and encourage Native Americans to adopt individual land ownership through policies like the Dawes Act. Pratt’s advocacy for assimilation fit within this larger framework of policies that sought to dissolve Native American identities and integrate them into the American economic system  .

Pratt’s statement, and his work more broadly, reflect a deeply flawed but historically common belief that indigenous cultures had to be erased in order for Native Americans to succeed. Today, this approach is widely criticized as a form of cultural genocide, as it aimed to strip away Native American identities and heritage in favor of forced assimilation into mainstream American society.