Category Archives: Minnesota history

The real plans for saving Fort Snelling from attack

May 28, 2010Bdote: A Public EIS, Daniel Shagobince, Minnesota Historical Society, Minnesota history, Other stuffBruce White

By Daniel Shagobince

Here are some real plans that people are talking about for what to do about Fort Snelling and keep it from being attacked. You are going to want to read this because it is very topical, including all the parts some of you campers will not like at all.

The guy who runs this website, that “White” guy, is telling me to stop talking trash about those rich people on the Minnesota River just south of Bloomington because other people are giving him carp about it and talking about sovereignty, which is really scary. OK, I get the message. I’m a changed person of infindecimal characteristics and I will try harder because that is completely, exactly how vaguely defined I am.

So, about Fort Snelling. That lady Nina Archabal (AKA Oprah), is retiring this year. When she said she was going to go she told a reporter that Fort Snelling will be a big honking job for the next Pope of the historical society because Fort Snelling was falling apart just like Humpty Dumpty. Earth to Oprah! Remember that part about “All the king’s horses and all the King’s may not be being able to put Humpty back together again”? Even I knew that. (By the way did you see that I didn’t call it the “hysterical society” because you jokers need to know that calling it that is just lame and stupid especially when you are writing something that is pretty long and have to keep saying it because the editor says you have to be consistent?)

Archabal 1 — Fort Snelling: It’s the new white treat. It’s what’s for dinner!

According to what I hear from people who may or may not know, who are the best kind of people to tell you the real truth, those people at the historical society are planning all kinds of things to figure out how to handle Fort Snelling because it is a handful and because of what is going to happen between now and 2012 when all heck breaks loose. That lady Nina Archabal had her picture taken in front of Fort Snelling because as far as she was concerned: “Fort Snelling, it’s the new white treat. It’s what’s for dinner!” And she was going to be getting in there and taking a stand. She was going to be saying: “If those darn Dakotas think they’re going to tear down Fort Snelling I will crush them with my fancy shoes!”

But now that that lady is retiring, those people are going to have to figure out what to do about that fort and about those darn Dakotas. Some people there are going to try and carry on what that Nina lady was planning, which is why that guy the other day said that the historical society was going to start planning for Dakota internment there. He really said that! Can you believe it? The ad slogan was going to be: “It was great in 1862, why not now?”

But from what I hear there are people in that historical society who are a lot nicer (Mnisota waßtecake?) and they want to try some other things first before rounding up Dakotas into internment camps. They figure that pretty soon there will be people crawling over the walls and hanging signs saying “Tear Down this darn place!” (Right, they’re really going to say “darn.”) Some of these people at the historical society used to work in art museums and they have good contacts with that artist/ bagman Christo, not the guy with the Greek restaurants, but the guy who hangs stuff up, wraps things, and puts covers over rivers. And it just happens to be the real truth that that Nina lady is a good pal of Christo, from way back when she did what she really liked, which was to run an art museum, instead of that boring carp, history.

Archabal 4 — Pretty soon there are going to be banners all over that fort with slogans on them.

So what they were going to do is get Christo to wrap up Fort Snelling with sheets and sheets of sheets. Put it under a layer of something with some good tight ropes so it is protected for a few years, until at least 2013, after the 150^th anniversary of the stuff that happened in 1862 and 1863 when the 38 (+2 later) Dakotas were hanged with ropes and the rest of them were wrapped up and shipped out of state, by the federal express of that time. I just happen to have some pictures here that these guys gave me showing how they were going to be wrapping up Fort Snelling. You’ve got to give it to them. It is a great concept.

Fort Snelling, all wrapped up by Christo

But the big obstacle for that is that there is this guy who is married to that other woman, who just happens to be running for governor, the wife, that is. And this guy is working for the historical society and he is saying: “Those types in the legislature won’t like this, paying all that dope for grak.” (Because generally those types hate paying dope for grak or even crump, or so I am being told.) So he is putting a stop to that. And of course there are other people who think that wrapping up that fort is kind of weak, so they say that if you can’t beat them up, join them. And they are all for getting that other guy Jim Denomie (a really great guy and I really mean that, although I’ve never met him, it’s just something I hear from that “White” guy, who keeps going “Jim Denomie is such a great artist and a real mensch” or something like that and no one else ever says anything bad about him) that fort painter who’s been working on plans of his own for the fort, including turning it into a hamburger place. They’re going to call it Burger Bdote. I swear this is true, even though he is Anishinabe and that could be a problem for those darn Dakotas.

Burger Bdote, as suggested by Jim Denomie — The new Burger Bdote at Fort Snelling, as inspired by artist Jim Denomie

But a lot of times a lot of guys at the historical society are always asking: “But what’s the bottom line?” Then they start talking about fund raising. And those guys have other plans. They are thinking they will show those other darn Dakotas a thing or two by turning over Fort Snelling to those folks with the money machine down the river to put their new money machine right there where it belongs at Bdote, right there inside Fort Snelling. And it will be called Mystic Bdote Junction. I mean Bdote really is THE junction, in case you were not aware. So what are the darn Dakotas going to be doing then, complain about other Dakotas? You can’t tell me they would do that. I know they all get along with each other. They never fight. They are all kodas, at least the men are, and they are all niijikwes and nijikwenhs and copains and copines and druhs and tovaryshes. Which is great because who wants to be in a room with relatives who are not getting along with each other? It is a P.I. T. B. And what’s more you might get hit.

Archabal 3 — Mystic Bdote Junction, a new vision for Fort Snelling

But the bottom line for this whole deal is that Nina Archabal (AKA Oprah) is now retiring and this whole problem is going to be a problem for who ever it is who has to fill her fancy shoes, or least her profile.

See! I didn’t say anything bad at all about the folks with the money machine on the Minnesota River. They are the good guys in this story. They are going to save Fort Snelling! Just like I said I am a changed person. Or I least I have change, in case you need some spare for the penny slots.

NOTICE: The opinions of Daniel Shagobince and the other commentators on this site are their own and do not represent those of www.MinnesotaHistory.net

Treaty rights in Minnesota under the 1855 Ojibwe treaty

May 13, 2010Minnesota history, Treaty rightsBruce White

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her 1999 opinion upholding hunting and fishing rights in the case of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs: “We interpret Indian treaties to give effect to the terms as the Indians themselves would have understood them.” She said that to interpret the meaning of specific treaty provisions, one had to look “beyond the written words to the larger context” that framed the treaty—the history of the negotiations and the “practical construction adopted by the parties.”

Stories and articles have recently appeared in Minnesota newspapers and other media about assertions of hunting and fishing rights under the 1855 Ojibwe treaty, which covers a large chunk of northern Minnesota. Since I was an expert witness for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe in 1994 in their treaty case involving the Treaty of 1837, I have been asked by several reporters to comment about the issues raised by several Ojibwe groups about the Treaty of 1855. I have talked with some of these reporters, but I do not plan to tell them my opinion about the meaning of the 1855 treaty for hunting and fishing rights in the area covered by that treaty.

Normally it is a terrible idea for anyone who gives expert historical testimony in treaty cases to talk to reporters about their opinions of those treaties. My full opinion on any treaty does not consist of any single casual remark I might make about it (or, for that matter, a single piece on a blog I might write about it). No matter how carefully you might state your opinions about an issue when speaking to a reporter you never can be sure how much of it or in what form it is going to be reported. In an article by Dennis Anderson in the Star Tribune last week, I am quoted saying something about the difference between the Mille Lacs case and the current discussion of 1855 treaty rights. Reading this article I can see a little ambiguity in how my opinions were reported. I am not faulting Dennis Anderson for this, because it is really inevitable when an article only includes a few of the things you’ve told the person who wrote it. But since Anderson’s article is on the public record I need to clarify a point about what I told him. Here’s how I was quoted:

“They [the bands] are making a different kind of argument here, and it’s more challenging,” said Bruce White, a St. Paul historical anthropologist who was among the Mille Lacs band’s expert witnesses in their successful U.S. Supreme Court petition.

“In the Mille Lacs case, the 1855 treaty came up because there was no explicit termination of hunting, fishing and gathering rights in it. That meant the rights still existed. I’m not saying [the Leech Lake and White Earth treaty case] is impossible. But it’s challenging.”

The point I was making here was that the 1855 treaty included no specific termination of the treaty rights reserved in the 1837 treaty. Since the 1855 treaty did not explicitly terminate them, that meant that the 1837 rights were not affected by the 1855 treaty. That was essentially how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 1999. As Justice O’Connor put it: “An analysis of the history, purpose, and negotiations of this [1855] Treaty leads us to conclude that the Mille Lacs Band did not relinquish their 1837 treaty rights in the 1855 Treaty.”

But what about other hunting and fishing rights, in the area ceded under the 1855 treaty? That is a question that was not settled by the 1999 Supreme Court decision. When I spoke to Dennis Anderson I did not say anything about the hunting and fishing rights in the area of the 1855 treaty under that same treaty, except to say that it could be a more challenging case to mount than the Mille Lacs case for a number of reasons. But it certainly is a case that could be made. It depends, in part, on what research into the history of the treaty would show.

To really know about the issue of treaty rights under the 1855 treaty, about the rights that were preserved in the treaty territory (which borders, but is not the same area as the 1837 area) you or I would have to study the issue in great detail, compiling all the available information about the historical context of the treaty and the understanding of the Indian people who signed it. There are a lot of common features among treaties, but there is no substitute for studying the context of each individual treaty.

The main point though, remains, and it is the reason that I spoke to Dennis Anderson and may speak to other reporters: It is important to understand that Indian treaties are the law of the land. They are not old forgotten documents. They are an enduring legacy for all of us, not just Indian people. They must be interpreted in the light of the understanding of the Indian people who signed them, and within the full historical context of their signing.

For more on this you can read an article of mine which is coming out in a new book in a couple of weeks. The article is called “The Myth of the “Forgotten” Treaty: Traditions about the St. Peters Treaty of 1837″ and it will appear in The State We’re In: Reflections on Minnesota History, edited by Annette Atkins and Deborah L. Miller, to be published by the Minnesota Historical Society Press (Publication date: June 1, 2010, $24.95). It is a collection of papers from a conference in 2008 that marked the 150th anniversary of Minnesota. Treaties are an important legacy of Minnesota’s history. That’s the bottom line.

Fears about a major Iron Range historical collection

March 1, 2010Historical Projects, Minnesota historical organizations, Minnesota history

What will happen to the endangered archival collection in the Iron Range Research Center (IRRC) on the campus of the Minnesota Discovery Center (MDC), formerly known as Ironworld Discovery Center? The fate of the archives, which opened in 1980, is up in the air because of the closing of the center in the fall of 2009, due to funding cutbacks.

The center’s collections contain thousands of cubic feet of unpublished materials including government records, personal records, church records, and records of numerous business, civic, and social organizations. They include the papers of former governor Rudy Perpich, mining company newsletters, maps, photographs – many very rare, oral histories, and microfilmed newspapers. According to Barbara Sommer, whose book, Hard Work and a Good Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps in Minnesota, based in part on research in IRRC collections, won a 2009 Minnesota Book Award and a 2009 Northeastern Minnesota Book Award:

Its [IRRC] collections contain archival materials that cannot be found elsewhere. . . . They represent “stunning examples” of materials documenting “people’s history” of 20th century America and Minnesota. As a former historical organization director, I know the task of preserving the materials and making them accessible … is not easy. But I also know we in Minnesota are proud of our history and supportive of protecting it.

The Ironworld Development Corporation (IDC) manages and operates the Minnesota Discovery Center, including the Iron Range Research Center. This is done under a contract with Iron Range Resources, a state economic development agency with funding from a taconite production tax. Rick Puhek, IDC Board chair, stated in a February 11, 2010, press release the Board remains committed to re-opening the Minnesota Discovery Center.

Aaron J. Brown, author of Overburden, Modern Life on the Iron Range, wrote on his MinnesotaBrown.com blog on December 14, 2009, the Iron Range Resources Board had approved a $450,000 expenditure to the Minnesota Discovery Center “to pay some bills, do an audit of the operation, heat the buildings, secure its historical documents, and also to reopen the facility to those who want to use its vast collection of area research data.” For more information from Brown, see his MinnesotaBrown.com blog. To date, although the audit has been completed, the Iron Range Research Center remains closed.

Researchers hope a sustainable operating plan for the Minnesota Discovery Center would include preserving, protecting, and maintaining IRRC collections intact and housed permanently on the Iron Range, continuing the Center’s purpose as a repository for materials documenting Minnesota’s Iron Ranges. If you would like to add your support for maintaining the IRRC collections intact and housed permanently on the Iron Range, contact:

Sandy Layman, Commissioner
Iron Range Resources
P.O. Box 441
4261 Highway 53 South
Eveleth, Minnesota 55734-0441

Senator David J. Tomassoni- DFL, District 05
[email protected]

Rep. Tom Rukavina – DFL, District 05A
[email protected]

Rep. Anthony “Tony” Sertich – DFL, District 05B
[email protected]