Unpublished Letter to the Editor, Submitted 12.10.07 to StarTrib

Dear Editor,

While there are many arguments that could be made in regard to Patrick Hill and Bob Keller’s responses to my previous letter to the editor (“Time to Level” printed December 2, 2007), I would like to focus on the extent of racism that still allows some white Minnesotans and their ancestors to claim innocence regarding their treatment of and interaction with Dakota people.
“Settlers” who came to this area did so with the hope and intent of acquiring Dakota land (or Anishinabe and Ho-Chunk lands). Because the practice of invading Indigenous lands in the Americas was already well-established first by Europeans and then Euro-Americans, those who came to Minnesota knew that at their urging the federal government would eventually step in to address the “Indian problem” either through extermination practices, legal land theft through violated treaties, or forced policies of ethnic cleansing. That sad story had already played out against hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Peoples in other parts of the United States, regardless of whether the populations maintained peaceful relations with the federal government, attempted to live up to white notions of civilization, or went to war. There is absolutely nothing benign about invading a People’s land, attacking their way of life, and initiating a process of colonization (followed by policies of genocide and ethnic cleansing when the original inhabitants attempt to defend themselves and their lands) which were all based on the usurpers sense of their own superiority. Indeed, to insist on any white innocence in Minnesota in 1862 would mean a total perversion of reality. That is, at least, assuming that we share a common moral compass that disavows the righteousness of invasion, land theft, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Hill suggests in his article that justice was done in Mankato “only if you believe a mere 38 individuals were responsible for the deaths of some 600 innocents [sic] and 100 defenders [sic] who sought to restore order.” His perversion of reality turns the usurpers into innocents and invaders into defenders of Indigenous land—that is an outright fabrication of the historical record. It is also a prime example of the colonizer’s logic. But what is most disturbing about Hill’s openly racist and colonialist comment is that implicit in his argument is the notion that Minnesotans did not go far enough in their policies of extermination and forced removal. Perhaps all the Dakota warriors tried in 1862 should have been hanged and perhaps all the Dakota women and children should have been exterminated. That was certainly the ideology that prevailed in the 1860s and Hill demonstrates it is alive and well in the minds of at least some 21st century Minnesota residents. And if given the opportunity today white Minnesotans would, perhaps, make the same decisions regarding Dakota people as their ancestors did in the 1860s. If that is true, perhaps you should finish the job so there would be no one left to call for justice. There would be no one left to disrupt your celebration of statehood. There would be no one left to remind you about the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated so that you can today live on these beautiful lands.

If it is not true and Minnesotans today would choose a different course of action, then I ask all of you today, where is your moral outrage? Where is your clamor for justice?

Waziyatawin, Ph.D. (Wahpetunwan Dakota)
Pezihutazizi Otunwe (Yellow Medicine Village)