The TAKE DOWN THE FORT campaign was initiated to challenge the notion that Historic Fort Snelling, an icon of American colonialism, should be re-fortified and remain standing as a symbol of American domination in the Dakota homeland of Minnesota.

In the name of decolonization and justice, a group of Dakota people and our allies are requesting that Historic Fort Snelling be demolished, the land returned to a pristine condition, and finally returned to the care and jurisdiction of Dakota people.

 

Why is the site important to Dakota people?

(top)

 Fort Snelling is the site of both our genesis and genocide. 

 According to the Bdewakantunwan Dakota creation story, the place referred to as Bdote (called Mendota in English), is the site where Dakota people were created.  Thus, Minisota Makoce (Land Where the Waters Reflect the Skies) is the ancient homeland of the Dakota People and Bdote is sacred because it marks the place of our emergence.

 Bdote is also the site of our genocide.  On November 13, 1862, approximately 1,700 Dakota people, primarily women and children, were force-marched from Lower Sioux to the concentration camp site at Fort Snelling.  While they were imprisoned there during the winter of 1862–63, we estimate that nearly 300 of our People died.  Through the winter, cannons from Fort Snelling were aimed at the Dakota cap

tives in their enclosed camp on the river flats below.  Furthermore, two Dakota leaders, Sakpe and Medicine Bottle, were hanged at Fort Snelling on November 11, 1865 for their role as defenders of our Dakota homeland during the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.

 

Campaign to

TAKE DOWN THE FORT

Shouldn’t such an important site be preserved for educational purposes?

 If so, not by the Minnesota Historical Society.  As of June 2006, the Minnesota Historical Society has chosen not to adequately or sensitively address Dakota interpretations of the site as the place of genesis or genocide, choosing instead to celebrate the site’s history as a frontier fort and as a training ground for the Union Army during the Civil War and soldiers for the Indian campaigns, the Spanish American War, and World War II (http://www.mnhs.org/places/sites/hfs/).  In fact, their website does not even mention the concentration camp created at Fort Snelling during the winter of 1862–63, nor does it discuss the fort as a site of genocide.  Visitors to the fort are welcomed by costumed guides who depict life at the fort during the 1820s, thereby avoiding a discussion of the more complicated and difficult stories of Dakota suffering.

 Their characterization of the fort is best captured in the first paragraph of their brief history of the fort visible on their website: “The story of Fort Snelling is the story of the development of the U.S. Northwest.  While surrounded today by freeways and a large urban population, Fort Snelling was once a lonely symbol of American ambition in the wilderness.”  This nostalgic and benign depiction completely ignores Dakota perspectives about the fort as an outpost of American imperialism that had devastating and lasting consequences for Minnesota’s original inhabitants.  The ugly issues of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and colonization are completely ignored in favor of a “feel-good” presentation.

 Given the Minnesota Historical Society’s history of actually denying or glossing over this darker side of American history, it has proven itself incapable of sensitively managing such an important, Indigenous sacred site.  Many of us have little faith that the Minnesota Historical society can promote any legitimate educational agendas surrounding this site.

 Could an educational project at Fort Snelling be managed more sensitively by Dakota people?

Indeed, the Fort Snelling site could serve a significant educational agenda if it were renovated to include critical Dakota perspectives and administered under Dakota control.  However, as Dakota people, we have to ask ourselves if engaging in an educational project at that site best suits our needs for such a sacred site.  Is it appropriate, for example, to house a museum on the site of our creation?  Does it do justice to our ancestors’ memory to have an educational facility at our site of genocide?  If we were not bound by the constraints of living as a colonized people, what would we want for our site of genesis and genocide?

After careful consideration, many of us believe that if we were operating outside of colonial rule, we would demolish the existing structures and return the land to a pristine condition.  With the landscape restored to support Indigenous plants and animals, we would make it a site of prayer, perhaps with some small memorial to commemorate our ancestors’ suffering.  In this way, we could pay homage to all aspects of our deep history at that site.

Furthermore, if the Historic Fort Snelling were to be demolished, it would provide an unprecedented educational opportunity not only for all Minnesotans but also for the rest of the nation.  The eradication of the fort would provide an excellent teaching moment in which various communities of people of all ages (including church groups, school groups, civic groups, and media outlets) could engage in provocative debates around the myriad associated issues.

Is there a precedent for a return of historic sites to Indigenous communities?

 Yes.  The Minnesota Historical Society has worked with tribal communities to transfer previously MHS controlled sites to Indigenous nations, as may be seen in the examples of the Mille Lacs Tribal Museum and the Lower Sioux Interpretive Center.  Thus, it is neither far-fetched nor inappropriate to suggest that the Fort Snelling site should also be returned to the Dakota People given the importance of that sacred site to the Dakota Nation.

 

Site Importance    Educational Purpose?    MHS Proposal  

Educational Purposes?

(top)