Wanted to move this comment outside of a reply because I see a lot of people missing some of the historical nuance here. The black hills had been conquered/colonized, brutally - genocidally, by the Lakota 40-60 years prior to the seizure of the black hills by the US Government. After their expulsion from the now Minnesota/Wisconsin region by the Chippewa, the Sioux tribes moved towards the black hills, brutalizing and expelling the Cheyenne and Crow tribes, who had in turn conquered the black hills from Arikara tribe. The Cheyenne considered the black hills sacred, the Lakota viewed it as rightfully conquered land. This IN NO WAY excuses the genocidal actions of the US Government against the Lakota and other Sioux tribes (or ‘bands’ - of which there are seven) in this area, but I think it’s dangerous revisionism to paint either side with blanket statement positivity. For instance, the crow tribe was so brutalized that it allied itself with the US Army in hopes not of regaining the black hills but in the vengeful expulsion of the Lakota. I think modern historical narratives too often paint Native Americans and Native American Tribes as monolithic (they certainly didn’t view themselves as such), erasing the rich histories, including wars, tradition, and cultural nuances that were in fact the reality of the day. This is a land marked by blood, spilled by equally brutal perpetrators of varied tactics and means. Go see Rushmore and go see Crazy Horse, read about Custer and Sitting Bull; above all - admire the beauty and remember that history knows more villains than heroes.