Thursday, May 1, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan's Unprublished Letter to the Star Tribune, Dec. 9, 2007
Star Tribune PO Box 183
425 Portland Avenue Waubay, SD 57273
Minneapolis, MN 55488 December 9, 2007
FAX: 612/673-435
Letter To The Editor:
It is encouraging the Minneapolis Star Tribune is facilitating the difficult dialogue surrounding the events that occurred in Minnesota during 1862. Patrick Hill in his rebuttal (Rest of the settlement story) has labeled Angela Wilson, a member of the Dakota Oyate (Time to level) a racist. Lori Surdevant Minneapolis StarTribune editorial writer and columnist (A Time when cultures met—and clashed) is not mentioned in his rebuttal.
It is unfortunate that in contemporary main stream America there continues to be ignorance regarding America’s Forced Removal Policy which had disastrous effects on tribal communities in what is today the United States. There is the Tsalagi (Cherokee) Trail of Tears, the Longest Walk of the Dine (Navajo), Chatot (Choctaw) and Sotaaeoo/Tsiststas (Cheyenne) Nations to name a few of the many tribal nations impacted by this policy. The greed Euro-Americans had for tribal land and its resources often culminated in land theft facilitated by treaties written in the English language, not in the written or conducted orally in the tribal language of the nations where the land was purported to have been purchased. Compensation was not at a fair price. If treaty purchases were ever honored at all. Tribal populations were coerced, threatened and murdered by Euro-Americans to gain their land and resources. Euro-Americans continue today to benefit from the vast land and resource theft without apology.
Many contemporary Euro-American citizens like Patrick Hill have the same rigid, narrow minded, uninformed attitudes that prevailed in 1862 that led to the genocide and exile of the Dakota Oyate. As a Dakota person I have often heard throughout my lifetime the phrase “Get over it,” when attempting dialogue about the inhumanity my ancestors endured in 1862. How does one get over the loss of a homeland, the imprisoned, murdered and disappeared of a few generations ago? One way for the Dakota Oyate to heal is to work toward public acknowledgement, reparations and justice.
There are many Dakota writers who have written tribal perspectives regarding history and colonization of tribal people. I can not see how writing from a tribal perspective makes one a racist as Patrick Hill states. Euro-American writers have had their perspective on American history widely published in the main stream press. War often brings out the worst of human nature. A brutal unavoidable result of war is that there are victims of violence, combatants and noncombatants on both sides. A person with sensitivity should feel horrified by the suffering caused by war. It is long over due for the voices of tribal writers to be included in the discussion of America’s history and the terrible truths to be told.
Lori Sturdevant and Angela Wilson have shown courage to take part in the complex discussion regarding a brutal part of Minnesota’s history. It is often vulnerable women and children who are the victims of war. History has shown that violence only escalates to more violence and does not resolve conflict. When will the world learn to settle issues by nonviolent means? It seems woman are most often committed to nation rebuilding as they strive for better education systems, hospitals and societies for their children and grandchildren. The Dakota Oyate will never forget the Diaspora of 1862 or the negative effects left on later generations. There has never been official public acknowledgement of the Dakota history of 1862. It is my hope that Jane Leonard, executive director for the Minnesota Sesquicentennial Committee will show leadership and continue the dialogue of truth telling to educate communities about the history of the Dakota Oyate in Minnesota throughout the coming year.
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan
Member of the Oak Lake Writers
Co-Coordinator Dakota Commemorative March
425 Portland Avenue Waubay, SD 57273
Minneapolis, MN 55488 December 9, 2007
FAX: 612/673-435
Letter To The Editor:
It is encouraging the Minneapolis Star Tribune is facilitating the difficult dialogue surrounding the events that occurred in Minnesota during 1862. Patrick Hill in his rebuttal (Rest of the settlement story) has labeled Angela Wilson, a member of the Dakota Oyate (Time to level) a racist. Lori Surdevant Minneapolis StarTribune editorial writer and columnist (A Time when cultures met—and clashed) is not mentioned in his rebuttal.
It is unfortunate that in contemporary main stream America there continues to be ignorance regarding America’s Forced Removal Policy which had disastrous effects on tribal communities in what is today the United States. There is the Tsalagi (Cherokee) Trail of Tears, the Longest Walk of the Dine (Navajo), Chatot (Choctaw) and Sotaaeoo/Tsiststas (Cheyenne) Nations to name a few of the many tribal nations impacted by this policy. The greed Euro-Americans had for tribal land and its resources often culminated in land theft facilitated by treaties written in the English language, not in the written or conducted orally in the tribal language of the nations where the land was purported to have been purchased. Compensation was not at a fair price. If treaty purchases were ever honored at all. Tribal populations were coerced, threatened and murdered by Euro-Americans to gain their land and resources. Euro-Americans continue today to benefit from the vast land and resource theft without apology.
Many contemporary Euro-American citizens like Patrick Hill have the same rigid, narrow minded, uninformed attitudes that prevailed in 1862 that led to the genocide and exile of the Dakota Oyate. As a Dakota person I have often heard throughout my lifetime the phrase “Get over it,” when attempting dialogue about the inhumanity my ancestors endured in 1862. How does one get over the loss of a homeland, the imprisoned, murdered and disappeared of a few generations ago? One way for the Dakota Oyate to heal is to work toward public acknowledgement, reparations and justice.
There are many Dakota writers who have written tribal perspectives regarding history and colonization of tribal people. I can not see how writing from a tribal perspective makes one a racist as Patrick Hill states. Euro-American writers have had their perspective on American history widely published in the main stream press. War often brings out the worst of human nature. A brutal unavoidable result of war is that there are victims of violence, combatants and noncombatants on both sides. A person with sensitivity should feel horrified by the suffering caused by war. It is long over due for the voices of tribal writers to be included in the discussion of America’s history and the terrible truths to be told.
Lori Sturdevant and Angela Wilson have shown courage to take part in the complex discussion regarding a brutal part of Minnesota’s history. It is often vulnerable women and children who are the victims of war. History has shown that violence only escalates to more violence and does not resolve conflict. When will the world learn to settle issues by nonviolent means? It seems woman are most often committed to nation rebuilding as they strive for better education systems, hospitals and societies for their children and grandchildren. The Dakota Oyate will never forget the Diaspora of 1862 or the negative effects left on later generations. There has never been official public acknowledgement of the Dakota history of 1862. It is my hope that Jane Leonard, executive director for the Minnesota Sesquicentennial Committee will show leadership and continue the dialogue of truth telling to educate communities about the history of the Dakota Oyate in Minnesota throughout the coming year.
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan
Member of the Oak Lake Writers
Co-Coordinator Dakota Commemorative March
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan's Letter to Dakota Journal, Dec. 12, 2007
Dakota Journal P.O. Box 183
P.O. Box 31 Waubay, SD 57273
Flandreau, SD 57028 December 12, 2007
FAX: 605/573-2684
editor@dakotajournal.net
Letter To The Editor:
This is in response to the book “Uprising” by Minnesota State Representative, Dean Urdahl. Dakota writers have written about this subject from the beginning. There is the collection of Dakota letters from the concentration camps, the published work of Dr. Charles Alexander Eastman and many contemporary Dakota writers. It is a disappointment that Euro-America continues to deny the Dakota perspective of the life and death struggle for survival and justice by the Dakota Oyate in 1862.
In 1862, 1,700 primarily women and children were forced-marched from Morton, Minnesota to a concentration camp located at Fort Snelling. Minnesota needs to acknowledge this terrible history by officially designating the path of the Dakota march as a memorial.
The Sesquicentennial Celebration of 150 years of Minnesota statehood that is planned for 2008 is based on duplicity of land theft and the genocide of the Dakota Oyate. Many editorials have been published by the Minneapolis Star Tribune written by Euro-Americans. Some of these editorials suggest that the Dakota today harbor racial hatred which does nothing more than justify the actions of Euro-American immigrants in 1862. Contemporary Dakota understand that racial hatred is corrosive, doing little to educate, invite dialogue or resolve difficult issues.
This is a moral issue that is why there are human rights groups at watch around the world. It is one of the reasons why organizations like the United Nations are needed to protect the human rights of people. The United States and Minnesota must be held accountable for America’s fundamental policies that should promote human rights, liberty and justice for all. These ideals did not apply equally to the Dakota in 1862.
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan
A Member of the Oak Lake Writers
Co-Coordinator Dakota Commemorative March
P.O. Box 31 Waubay, SD 57273
Flandreau, SD 57028 December 12, 2007
FAX: 605/573-2684
editor@dakotajournal.net
Letter To The Editor:
This is in response to the book “Uprising” by Minnesota State Representative, Dean Urdahl. Dakota writers have written about this subject from the beginning. There is the collection of Dakota letters from the concentration camps, the published work of Dr. Charles Alexander Eastman and many contemporary Dakota writers. It is a disappointment that Euro-America continues to deny the Dakota perspective of the life and death struggle for survival and justice by the Dakota Oyate in 1862.
In 1862, 1,700 primarily women and children were forced-marched from Morton, Minnesota to a concentration camp located at Fort Snelling. Minnesota needs to acknowledge this terrible history by officially designating the path of the Dakota march as a memorial.
The Sesquicentennial Celebration of 150 years of Minnesota statehood that is planned for 2008 is based on duplicity of land theft and the genocide of the Dakota Oyate. Many editorials have been published by the Minneapolis Star Tribune written by Euro-Americans. Some of these editorials suggest that the Dakota today harbor racial hatred which does nothing more than justify the actions of Euro-American immigrants in 1862. Contemporary Dakota understand that racial hatred is corrosive, doing little to educate, invite dialogue or resolve difficult issues.
This is a moral issue that is why there are human rights groups at watch around the world. It is one of the reasons why organizations like the United Nations are needed to protect the human rights of people. The United States and Minnesota must be held accountable for America’s fundamental policies that should promote human rights, liberty and justice for all. These ideals did not apply equally to the Dakota in 1862.
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan
A Member of the Oak Lake Writers
Co-Coordinator Dakota Commemorative March
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Breton's Unpublished Letter to Star Tribune, De. 10, 2007
Dear Editor,
I want to thank Joe Tompkins for his letter showing the absurdity of the discussion about our history on this land. Essentially, the questions are: Is it okay to steal a state's worth of land through genocide? Moreover, if we were in the same position today with the Dakota-if they today occupied Minnesota's 140 million acres and we wanted those lands-would we do the same thing all over again?
By “the same thing,” I mean commit fraud, violate all agreements, cause starvation, then, when the inevitable war of resistance finally occurs, use the war as a justification to commit all-out extermination of an Indigenous People by every conceivable means, so that their land can be “cleared for settlement” by the invaders. Evidently, some Minnesotans believe we didn't go far enough in eradicating the Dakota People from their ancestral homeland. Presumably, genocide remains today, as it was in 1862, an acceptable means for taking what we want.
The sesquicentennial of Minnesota statehood gives us an opportunity to confront these issues head on. We like to think that we-and I am white-have “progressed” in these 150 years, that we hold greater respect for those different from ourselves and that we do not ascribe to “might makes right” or “white makes right.” But is this so?
The clear choice of the state-funded, state-sponsored Sesquicentennial Commission to promote “celebrations” holds up a mirror that shows us exactly where we are. The choice to celebrate statehood is a choice both to deny and to endorse genocide, since all the riches, bounty, and achievements that Minnesotans have gained in these 150 years on this land has come at the price-the ultimate price-paid by the Dakota People. Since 1862, Minnesotans have held regular celebrations of the extermination of the Dakota People, and evidently, we have not “progressed” beyond this white, colonizer norm.
What could we do as we approach this time of remembering?
Instead of funding the celebration of genocide, we as a state could put our energies behind hearing our history from a Dakota perspective. We have heard the Euro-colonizer view; for 150 years, that is all we have heard. Conquerors typically write history in ways that justify their conquest. It is myth and propaganda, not history. If we want to know how we got to where we are today, we need to hear the accounts passed down through generations of Dakota people both living here and scattered across this continent, where Dakota people fled to escape Minnesota's state-sponsored terrorism.
As the wider picture emerges, we see more clearly not only who suffered and who benefited but also whose descendants continue to suffer and whose descendants continue to benefit. Whereas the non-Dakota inhabitants of Minnesota number five million people, less than two thousand Dakota people live on Dakota-held lands. And whereas at one time the state's 54 million acres were counted as Dakota homeland, only 3,200 acres remain under Dakota control today-less than .006 percent. Genocide, land theft, and the dispossession of the Dakota People from their ancestral homeland have been exceedingly effective.
Some of those I speak to about our history with the Dakota People quickly tell me how recently they or their ancestors came here, implying that the obligations created by these immense harms do not apply to them. Yet any non-Dakota person living in this state benefits from the massive dispossession and suffering of the Dakota People. This is not to blame anyone; it simply states a fact.
Again, the question is: What do we do about this fact? How do we respond, especially as we mark 150 years of statehood?
Minnesota is an international leader in restorative justice. Restorative justice explores how we can respond to harms in a good way, so that the harms do not happen again. Our restorative justice professionals travel all over the world advising other countries in how to come to terms with and rectify atrocities embedded in their past. The process involves hearing the stories, acknowledging the harms and the obligations that the harms create, holding each other accountable, whether as perpetrators or as beneficiaries of harms, and then working together to “make things right.” More than talk, the restorative justice process requires making amends and restitution-doing what it takes to make victims whole again. Yet not only the victims benefit. Engaging in this process can be profoundly transformative on both sides of harm.
Restorative justice suggests to me that the opportunity remains for all of us to “be here in a good way.” But celebrating genocide-which celebrating statehood without confronting the genocide that statehood entailed boils down to doing-won't get us there. For respectful coexistence, we need truth, and we need justice: the same things we all need when we have suffered harm.
Denise Breton lives in Saint Paul and is the executive director of Living Justice Press, a nonprofit publishing company devoted to restorative justice and the publisher of In the Footsteps of Our Ancestors: The Dakota Commemorative Marches of the 21st Century by Waziyatawin Angela Wilson.
I want to thank Joe Tompkins for his letter showing the absurdity of the discussion about our history on this land. Essentially, the questions are: Is it okay to steal a state's worth of land through genocide? Moreover, if we were in the same position today with the Dakota-if they today occupied Minnesota's 140 million acres and we wanted those lands-would we do the same thing all over again?
By “the same thing,” I mean commit fraud, violate all agreements, cause starvation, then, when the inevitable war of resistance finally occurs, use the war as a justification to commit all-out extermination of an Indigenous People by every conceivable means, so that their land can be “cleared for settlement” by the invaders. Evidently, some Minnesotans believe we didn't go far enough in eradicating the Dakota People from their ancestral homeland. Presumably, genocide remains today, as it was in 1862, an acceptable means for taking what we want.
The sesquicentennial of Minnesota statehood gives us an opportunity to confront these issues head on. We like to think that we-and I am white-have “progressed” in these 150 years, that we hold greater respect for those different from ourselves and that we do not ascribe to “might makes right” or “white makes right.” But is this so?
The clear choice of the state-funded, state-sponsored Sesquicentennial Commission to promote “celebrations” holds up a mirror that shows us exactly where we are. The choice to celebrate statehood is a choice both to deny and to endorse genocide, since all the riches, bounty, and achievements that Minnesotans have gained in these 150 years on this land has come at the price-the ultimate price-paid by the Dakota People. Since 1862, Minnesotans have held regular celebrations of the extermination of the Dakota People, and evidently, we have not “progressed” beyond this white, colonizer norm.
What could we do as we approach this time of remembering?
Instead of funding the celebration of genocide, we as a state could put our energies behind hearing our history from a Dakota perspective. We have heard the Euro-colonizer view; for 150 years, that is all we have heard. Conquerors typically write history in ways that justify their conquest. It is myth and propaganda, not history. If we want to know how we got to where we are today, we need to hear the accounts passed down through generations of Dakota people both living here and scattered across this continent, where Dakota people fled to escape Minnesota's state-sponsored terrorism.
As the wider picture emerges, we see more clearly not only who suffered and who benefited but also whose descendants continue to suffer and whose descendants continue to benefit. Whereas the non-Dakota inhabitants of Minnesota number five million people, less than two thousand Dakota people live on Dakota-held lands. And whereas at one time the state's 54 million acres were counted as Dakota homeland, only 3,200 acres remain under Dakota control today-less than .006 percent. Genocide, land theft, and the dispossession of the Dakota People from their ancestral homeland have been exceedingly effective.
Some of those I speak to about our history with the Dakota People quickly tell me how recently they or their ancestors came here, implying that the obligations created by these immense harms do not apply to them. Yet any non-Dakota person living in this state benefits from the massive dispossession and suffering of the Dakota People. This is not to blame anyone; it simply states a fact.
Again, the question is: What do we do about this fact? How do we respond, especially as we mark 150 years of statehood?
Minnesota is an international leader in restorative justice. Restorative justice explores how we can respond to harms in a good way, so that the harms do not happen again. Our restorative justice professionals travel all over the world advising other countries in how to come to terms with and rectify atrocities embedded in their past. The process involves hearing the stories, acknowledging the harms and the obligations that the harms create, holding each other accountable, whether as perpetrators or as beneficiaries of harms, and then working together to “make things right.” More than talk, the restorative justice process requires making amends and restitution-doing what it takes to make victims whole again. Yet not only the victims benefit. Engaging in this process can be profoundly transformative on both sides of harm.
Restorative justice suggests to me that the opportunity remains for all of us to “be here in a good way.” But celebrating genocide-which celebrating statehood without confronting the genocide that statehood entailed boils down to doing-won't get us there. For respectful coexistence, we need truth, and we need justice: the same things we all need when we have suffered harm.
Denise Breton lives in Saint Paul and is the executive director of Living Justice Press, a nonprofit publishing company devoted to restorative justice and the publisher of In the Footsteps of Our Ancestors: The Dakota Commemorative Marches of the 21st Century by Waziyatawin Angela Wilson.
Mato Nunpa's Unpublished Letter to Star Tribune, Dec. 4, 2007
LETTER TO EDITOR RE:
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND 2008,
THE 150TH BIRTHDAY OF MINNESOTA AS A STATE
Hau Mitakuyapi. Owasin cantewasteye nape ciyuzapi do! “Hello my relatives. With a good heart, I greet all of you with a handshake!” Anpetu kin de taku epe wacin. “On this day, I wish to say something.”
As many of you already know, 2008 is the 150th birthday of Minnesota as a state. I can hear the Euro-Minnesotans saying how great Minnesota is and how they and their ancestors made the state great! And, I am not sure what role, if any, the Indigenous Peoples of Minnesota will play in the wasicu (“white man”) telling of the story.
They, certainly, will not be telling the truth about what happened to the Dakota People of Minnesota. They will not talk about the massive land theft, the breaking of Dakota treaties, the genocide of the Dakota People of Mini Sota Makoce, “the land where the waters reflect the skies, or heavens,” the warfare, the suppression of Indigenous spirituality and ceremonies, the suppression of Native languages through their residential boarding schools, the bounties on Dakota People, the mass executions, the two concentration camps, forced marches, and forcible removal, or “ethnic cleansing,” etc.
What I wish to tell you concerns the Minnesota Historical Society and my negative attitude toward the MHS, both professionally and personally. I wish to tell you all about two incidents, specifically. Both incidents involve human remains.
Back in 1987, the 125th anniversary of the 1862 event, my committee, the Dakota Studies Committee, planned, raised funds, organized, and coordinated a series of wonderful events to commemorate the 125th anniversary. At one of the events, the Symposium on Dakota Treaties at the Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, I was told by the then State Archaeologist that the Minnesota Historical Society had 40 boxes of human remains, 100 of Black Dog’s villagers, in their possession at the Ft. Snelling Historical site. She told me that she would like to see them re-buried. At the time, the MHS top leaders were saying that “we have no human remains in our official inventory.” The operative word was “official.” In other words, in their “unofficial” inventory, they had human remains.
It was my feeling that I, too, wished to see the remains re-buried. The State Archaeologist knew how I would react – that I would call right away to find out if this was indeed true, viz., the MHS having human Dakota remains in their possession.
I was told this bit of information on Saturday of the symposium. The following Monday, I made a telephone call to someone I knew who worked at the Ft. Snelling site. When I mentioned to this person what I had heard, this person said, “Oh no, we have no human remains in our possession.” So, then, I realized that the middle and bottom levels of MHS personnel were parroting what the MHS administration told them to say. Anyway, this person said, “I will check on it.” The next morning, on Tuesday, this person told me that a truck was being loaded with the 40 boxes of the bones of Black Dog’s villagers. The remains were taken to the State Archaeologist’s office. What the state archaeologist conveniently forgot to tell me was the fact that she and her staff wanted to study the remains first before they would be re-buried. The State Archaeologist had used me to accomplish her ends.
I did write a letter to a Mr. Rothchild, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the MHS, and indicated my displeasure and lack of appreciation for their lying about saying they had no human remains, when they did have human remains in their possession. I quoted a verse from the Bible, from the New Testament, to them. The verse (Matthew 23: 27) was a statement from Jesus when he was rebuking the Pharisees, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” I was rather proud of myself for coming up with that Bible verse.
However, I did find out, rather emphatically, that the good Christian white folk do not like a savage quoting scriptures to them, especially when it was so appropriate and so true (viz., “full of dead men’s bones”). Mr. Rothchild wrote a letter to me saying several things. Among them was his statement that he found my rhetoric “inflammatory” and that he had instructed Nina Archabal, the MHS Director, to have no further communication with me. So, since that time, 1987, I have had no communication or dealings with the MHS. I am persona non grata. However, Nina Archabal is, also, still, under orders to not communicate with me.
My present position is that I will have no further dealings or interactions with the MHS until their Chairman of the Board of Trustees instructs and allows the MHS Director and staff to have contact, communication, and a working relationship with me. I do not see that happening in my lifetime.
So, that is one incident.
The second incident involves the remains of Little Crow. As many of you know, Little Crow, the principal leader of the war efforts against the wasicu in 1862, was killed in July of 1863. Little Crow was not buried until 1971, 108 years later. In the meantime, a number of gruesome things happened to the remains. The next day was 4th of July, and the good Christian white folk of Hutchinson, Minnesota placed firecrackers in every orifice of Little Crow’s body and exploded them. In this macabre manner these Euro-Minnesotans celebrated their Independence Day. The MHS continued to act in a morbid manner. They kept Little Crow’s remains, displayed them at the State Capitol, and resisted calls from family members and relatives to return the remains since 1900, and perhaps even before that time.
A number of us Dakota members of the Dakota Studies Committee, along with some non-Dakota allies, signed and sent a letter to the MHS asking them to apologize to the family and relatives of Little Crow and to the Dakota People of Minnesota for the shameful and disrespectful treatment of the remains of Little Crow, and for keeping the remains for 108 years before they were finally re-buried.. In their comfortable, colonialist, and privileged status, the MHS did not apologize. I suspect they felt no need to apologize, that to apologize was beneath them. Instead, they offered “regrets.”
That, then, is the second incident.
The last thing I wish to comment upon is the role of the Minnesota Historical Society as the keeper of the “master narrative” of the history of the state of Minnesota. They decide what should be said and not said. They determine who the heroes are and who the villains are. They control what terms and phrases are appropriate and what are inappropriate. Instead of the point of view of the people whose lands were stolen, they have the point of view of the people stole the lands. Instead of the perspective of the people whose treaties were violated, they represent the point of view of the people who violated the treaties. Instead of speaking from the point of view of the people who were the victims of genocide, they speak from the point of view of the people who perpetrated the genocide.
So, the MHS will determine that Ramsey and Sibley are heroes and great men while the Dakota will say that these men were Genocidaires, the perpetrators of genocide of the Dakota People of Minnesota. Instead of using phrases like “massive land theft,” the MHS will use terms and phrases such as “settlement,” “expansion,” “manifest destiny,” etc. Instead of using phrases/terms like “ethnic cleansing” or “dispossession,” they will emphasize how the Dakota People were in the way of progress and civilization and needed to be removed from the path of God’s chosen people.
In conclusion, these are some of the issues that will be points of contention between the Minnesota Historical Society, along with the Euro-Minnesotan citizenry, and the Dakota People. It is my belief that the truth needs to be told and acknowledged about what really happened not only in the state of Minnesota but also in the country. The Dakota People will need the help of our Indigenous brothers and sisters here in the state of Minnesota as well as the help of our non-Native brothers and sisters in order to accurately recount the history of the past 150 years. May they not continue to be another 150 years of lies, arrogance, hypocrisy, white supremacy, greed, suppression, and corruption.
Chris Mato Nunpa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Indigenous Nations & Dakota Studies (INDS)
Southwest Minnesota State University
Marshall, Minnesota 56258
507-537-6118 (o)
“ matonunpa@southwestmsu.edu “
“ matonunpa@earthlink.net “
Dakota, Wahpetunwan (“Dwellers In the Leaves”)
Pezihuta Zizi Otunwe (“Yellow Medicine Community”) or
Upper Sioux Community
Granite Falls, Minnesota 56241
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND 2008,
THE 150TH BIRTHDAY OF MINNESOTA AS A STATE
Hau Mitakuyapi. Owasin cantewasteye nape ciyuzapi do! “Hello my relatives. With a good heart, I greet all of you with a handshake!” Anpetu kin de taku epe wacin. “On this day, I wish to say something.”
As many of you already know, 2008 is the 150th birthday of Minnesota as a state. I can hear the Euro-Minnesotans saying how great Minnesota is and how they and their ancestors made the state great! And, I am not sure what role, if any, the Indigenous Peoples of Minnesota will play in the wasicu (“white man”) telling of the story.
They, certainly, will not be telling the truth about what happened to the Dakota People of Minnesota. They will not talk about the massive land theft, the breaking of Dakota treaties, the genocide of the Dakota People of Mini Sota Makoce, “the land where the waters reflect the skies, or heavens,” the warfare, the suppression of Indigenous spirituality and ceremonies, the suppression of Native languages through their residential boarding schools, the bounties on Dakota People, the mass executions, the two concentration camps, forced marches, and forcible removal, or “ethnic cleansing,” etc.
What I wish to tell you concerns the Minnesota Historical Society and my negative attitude toward the MHS, both professionally and personally. I wish to tell you all about two incidents, specifically. Both incidents involve human remains.
Back in 1987, the 125th anniversary of the 1862 event, my committee, the Dakota Studies Committee, planned, raised funds, organized, and coordinated a series of wonderful events to commemorate the 125th anniversary. At one of the events, the Symposium on Dakota Treaties at the Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, I was told by the then State Archaeologist that the Minnesota Historical Society had 40 boxes of human remains, 100 of Black Dog’s villagers, in their possession at the Ft. Snelling Historical site. She told me that she would like to see them re-buried. At the time, the MHS top leaders were saying that “we have no human remains in our official inventory.” The operative word was “official.” In other words, in their “unofficial” inventory, they had human remains.
It was my feeling that I, too, wished to see the remains re-buried. The State Archaeologist knew how I would react – that I would call right away to find out if this was indeed true, viz., the MHS having human Dakota remains in their possession.
I was told this bit of information on Saturday of the symposium. The following Monday, I made a telephone call to someone I knew who worked at the Ft. Snelling site. When I mentioned to this person what I had heard, this person said, “Oh no, we have no human remains in our possession.” So, then, I realized that the middle and bottom levels of MHS personnel were parroting what the MHS administration told them to say. Anyway, this person said, “I will check on it.” The next morning, on Tuesday, this person told me that a truck was being loaded with the 40 boxes of the bones of Black Dog’s villagers. The remains were taken to the State Archaeologist’s office. What the state archaeologist conveniently forgot to tell me was the fact that she and her staff wanted to study the remains first before they would be re-buried. The State Archaeologist had used me to accomplish her ends.
I did write a letter to a Mr. Rothchild, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the MHS, and indicated my displeasure and lack of appreciation for their lying about saying they had no human remains, when they did have human remains in their possession. I quoted a verse from the Bible, from the New Testament, to them. The verse (Matthew 23: 27) was a statement from Jesus when he was rebuking the Pharisees, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” I was rather proud of myself for coming up with that Bible verse.
However, I did find out, rather emphatically, that the good Christian white folk do not like a savage quoting scriptures to them, especially when it was so appropriate and so true (viz., “full of dead men’s bones”). Mr. Rothchild wrote a letter to me saying several things. Among them was his statement that he found my rhetoric “inflammatory” and that he had instructed Nina Archabal, the MHS Director, to have no further communication with me. So, since that time, 1987, I have had no communication or dealings with the MHS. I am persona non grata. However, Nina Archabal is, also, still, under orders to not communicate with me.
My present position is that I will have no further dealings or interactions with the MHS until their Chairman of the Board of Trustees instructs and allows the MHS Director and staff to have contact, communication, and a working relationship with me. I do not see that happening in my lifetime.
So, that is one incident.
The second incident involves the remains of Little Crow. As many of you know, Little Crow, the principal leader of the war efforts against the wasicu in 1862, was killed in July of 1863. Little Crow was not buried until 1971, 108 years later. In the meantime, a number of gruesome things happened to the remains. The next day was 4th of July, and the good Christian white folk of Hutchinson, Minnesota placed firecrackers in every orifice of Little Crow’s body and exploded them. In this macabre manner these Euro-Minnesotans celebrated their Independence Day. The MHS continued to act in a morbid manner. They kept Little Crow’s remains, displayed them at the State Capitol, and resisted calls from family members and relatives to return the remains since 1900, and perhaps even before that time.
A number of us Dakota members of the Dakota Studies Committee, along with some non-Dakota allies, signed and sent a letter to the MHS asking them to apologize to the family and relatives of Little Crow and to the Dakota People of Minnesota for the shameful and disrespectful treatment of the remains of Little Crow, and for keeping the remains for 108 years before they were finally re-buried.. In their comfortable, colonialist, and privileged status, the MHS did not apologize. I suspect they felt no need to apologize, that to apologize was beneath them. Instead, they offered “regrets.”
That, then, is the second incident.
The last thing I wish to comment upon is the role of the Minnesota Historical Society as the keeper of the “master narrative” of the history of the state of Minnesota. They decide what should be said and not said. They determine who the heroes are and who the villains are. They control what terms and phrases are appropriate and what are inappropriate. Instead of the point of view of the people whose lands were stolen, they have the point of view of the people stole the lands. Instead of the perspective of the people whose treaties were violated, they represent the point of view of the people who violated the treaties. Instead of speaking from the point of view of the people who were the victims of genocide, they speak from the point of view of the people who perpetrated the genocide.
So, the MHS will determine that Ramsey and Sibley are heroes and great men while the Dakota will say that these men were Genocidaires, the perpetrators of genocide of the Dakota People of Minnesota. Instead of using phrases like “massive land theft,” the MHS will use terms and phrases such as “settlement,” “expansion,” “manifest destiny,” etc. Instead of using phrases/terms like “ethnic cleansing” or “dispossession,” they will emphasize how the Dakota People were in the way of progress and civilization and needed to be removed from the path of God’s chosen people.
In conclusion, these are some of the issues that will be points of contention between the Minnesota Historical Society, along with the Euro-Minnesotan citizenry, and the Dakota People. It is my belief that the truth needs to be told and acknowledged about what really happened not only in the state of Minnesota but also in the country. The Dakota People will need the help of our Indigenous brothers and sisters here in the state of Minnesota as well as the help of our non-Native brothers and sisters in order to accurately recount the history of the past 150 years. May they not continue to be another 150 years of lies, arrogance, hypocrisy, white supremacy, greed, suppression, and corruption.
Chris Mato Nunpa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Indigenous Nations & Dakota Studies (INDS)
Southwest Minnesota State University
Marshall, Minnesota 56258
507-537-6118 (o)
“ matonunpa@southwestmsu.edu “
“ matonunpa@earthlink.net “
Dakota, Wahpetunwan (“Dwellers In the Leaves”)
Pezihuta Zizi Otunwe (“Yellow Medicine Community”) or
Upper Sioux Community
Granite Falls, Minnesota 56241
As of yet unpublished Letter to Star Tribune
February 24, 2008
Historic Fort Snelling is, first and foremost, an icon of American imperialism. In fact, it is Minnesota’s first and longest-lasting monumental icon to American imperialism, imposed on the landscape since 1819. Built of stone and mortar, Americans intended for this structure to last, a seemingly permanent and gigantic reminder that Dakota homeland was in the predatory sights of the U.S. government. Fort Snelling allowed the U.S. government to establish dominance in the region and open the floodgates for white invasion of Dakota lands.
However, what Minnesotans must remember is that the fort that stands there now is not the original Fort Snelling, rather it is a replica of Fort Snelling restored to its 1820s condition. When the fort crumbled before in the 20th century, Minnesotan’s rallied to its defense and support, raising the millions of dollars necessary to resuscitate their beloved icon. Now, the replica fort is crumbling again and the Minnesota Historical Society is asking Minnesotans to spend another $24.8 million to refortify this icon of imperialism.
Nina Archabal and the Minnesota Historical Society are the fort’s defenders and champions (Feb. 17, 2008 letter, “Fort Snelling: Should its history be told?”). It is no surprise that their exorbitant request comes during the Sesquicentennial year, when Minnesotans are asked to take pride in the state’s history. Archibal calls on us to support the renovations so that she and her staff can begin to tell a more “inclusive” story of the fort, recognizing that they have failed miserably to include, for example, the effect of the fort on Dakota people and homeland. Archabal tells us that she believes “we cannot transcend the past until we know it and have learned from it.” Yet, even now she does not mention such things as “imperialism,” “colonialism,” “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “concentration camp,” which are all part of that fort’s legacy.
In the 21st century, are Minnesotans really prepared to refortify this icon of American imperialism? It would be far more educational to all Minnesotans if we rejected the renovation of the fort and invested instead in dismantling this symbol of domination, thereby conveying the message that in our day, on our watch, we do not want symbols of oppression standing on these lands. It is time to take down the fort.
Waziyatawin, Ph.D.
Historic Fort Snelling is, first and foremost, an icon of American imperialism. In fact, it is Minnesota’s first and longest-lasting monumental icon to American imperialism, imposed on the landscape since 1819. Built of stone and mortar, Americans intended for this structure to last, a seemingly permanent and gigantic reminder that Dakota homeland was in the predatory sights of the U.S. government. Fort Snelling allowed the U.S. government to establish dominance in the region and open the floodgates for white invasion of Dakota lands.
However, what Minnesotans must remember is that the fort that stands there now is not the original Fort Snelling, rather it is a replica of Fort Snelling restored to its 1820s condition. When the fort crumbled before in the 20th century, Minnesotan’s rallied to its defense and support, raising the millions of dollars necessary to resuscitate their beloved icon. Now, the replica fort is crumbling again and the Minnesota Historical Society is asking Minnesotans to spend another $24.8 million to refortify this icon of imperialism.
Nina Archabal and the Minnesota Historical Society are the fort’s defenders and champions (Feb. 17, 2008 letter, “Fort Snelling: Should its history be told?”). It is no surprise that their exorbitant request comes during the Sesquicentennial year, when Minnesotans are asked to take pride in the state’s history. Archibal calls on us to support the renovations so that she and her staff can begin to tell a more “inclusive” story of the fort, recognizing that they have failed miserably to include, for example, the effect of the fort on Dakota people and homeland. Archabal tells us that she believes “we cannot transcend the past until we know it and have learned from it.” Yet, even now she does not mention such things as “imperialism,” “colonialism,” “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “concentration camp,” which are all part of that fort’s legacy.
In the 21st century, are Minnesotans really prepared to refortify this icon of American imperialism? It would be far more educational to all Minnesotans if we rejected the renovation of the fort and invested instead in dismantling this symbol of domination, thereby conveying the message that in our day, on our watch, we do not want symbols of oppression standing on these lands. It is time to take down the fort.
Waziyatawin, Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)