You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Here's how the Star Tribune's multimedia series was prepared.
I am not foolish enough to believe in all the stories of every American Indian tribe being the peaceful, earth loving people which is being pushed today. I have read way too much history to know that, but I have to tell you there truly is nothing in American History which gets me sicker to my stomach faster than the treatment of American Indians. That is saying quite a bit. Especially since the land of "all men are created equal" considered black men and women slaves. As a man who served his Country and loves it very much I am very much ashamed of some of our history. Whether it be the murder or ethic cleaning of the American Indian, slavery of Black American's, treatment of women or the terrible treatment so many immigrants received from the Chinese, Hispanics (many native Hispanics), Italians, Irish, you name it. America has been the land of opportunity for many, many people. Many glorious stories have been written here, but we should NEVER forget the many tradegies that we created along the way.
carodun133 - AGREED - The US has much to be proud of and much we no longer would do with today's mindset. The good does not erase the bad. Both must be taught.
History is what it is. You cannot judge the morality of one time with the sensibilities of another.
Sorry to be picky, but you are 'journalists' after all -- it is a 'deeply researched' history, not 'deeply reported' (there is no such animal). This history was taught in my 1968 5th grade elementary school, using a 1964 textbook: "Faces of Minnesota". It was officially known as 'The Great Sioux Uprising of 1862", not a Dakota war. There was no war, just massacre of whites by Indians, fighting related to defense of farms and towns, and the killing of friendly Sioux by uprising participants. It was required curriculum in Anoka-Hennepin School District #11, not a hidden history that emerged in the 1990's (the editor is either from somewhere other than MN, or is ignorant of life here). The executions were stayed by Pres. Lincoln with the exception of those guilty of murder (especially women and child victims), and/or rape. Lincoln felt those who killed in the heat of 'battle' were cases either too difficult disprove, or were justified by acting in their own self-defense. Mistakes were made all around: after all, people are flawed, and/or act stupidly, more often than not.
Oh, please. To say that the "Dakota war" was more significant to Minnesota than the Civil War is silly. The history of Indian and White relations in Minnesota were similar to what occurred in many states. Whites moved in and everybody got along for awhile. Then, problems developed,the Indians tried to evict the whites, hostilities followed and the Indians lost territory. The 1862 uprising resulted in the murder of a large number of settlers but was put down quickly by troops as the Indians performance on the battlefield was poor. At no time during uprising did Little Crow's forces come even close to forcing white people out of Minnesota, which was their goal. They couldn't even conquer little New Ulm! For whatever reasons the Indians seemed to have believed that because the US was engaged in the Civil War they had some advantage. That was a monumental error. The US was on a war footing at the time with plenty of industrial production and soldiers. The Indians had no industry, and were apparently ignorant of then current military tactics.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks