historical accuracy question

[tamara]

Here is a exerpt from Identity Heist by Dr Buttes, and again there seems to be no recognition for their being a different set of persons in Minnesota than those identified as the "Loyal Mdewakanton" in 1863 and subsequent years. Although the following could be accuarately said about some of the persons there, it cannot be said about others and doesnt seem reasonable to be so general in speaking of this group found in 1886. Again it would seem to perpetuate a misconception about the "loyalists" and a bit insulting to the Dakota people who know their historical figures, families and histories.

The Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska also clearly differed from the Santee Sioux who had signed treaties with the United States in the 1830s. Coalescing with other tribes and collectively surviving as a single political unit, no federal census clarifies the former tribal affiliation of the remnants from several formerly sovereign political entities, which reconstituted as the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.

At the same time, there remained a small group of Dakota-speaking people who had escaped exile, hiding in their Minnesota homelands. Mostly Mdewakanton, these people had outwitted the bounty hunters, who received $200 from the state of Minnesota for each Sioux scalp they presented. The Mdewakanton refugees survived by staying out of sight from the non-Indian Minnesotans, constructing makeshift shelters along the creek banks, and eating whatever they could find. The Mdewakanton signed no treaties with the United States after the 1862 war. As far as their relationship with the federal government was concerned, they were totally without political identity. In the early 1880s, the presence of the refugees became apparent to non-Indian Minnesotans and, in 1884, Congress formally recognized them as the Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux. After a period of twenty-two years, the Mdewakanton who had remained in Minnesota clearly differed from the Santee Sioux of Nebraska. The Santee had received government rations, lived on reservation land, and signed additional treaties with the United States.

A census dated June 30, 1886, gives the names, relationships, sex, and ages of the Santee Sioux. Clearly delineating the political distinction between the Santee and the Mdewakanton, that same year, another census dated May 20, 1886, designates the individuals listed as the full-blood Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux. A second Mdewakanton census was completed in 1889 and includes the Mdewakanton who had returned to Minnesota, as well as any half bloods who had been left off the 1886 census. Nevertheless, the Congressional Acts in 1888, 1889, and 1890 stipulate that appropriations were to benefit those Mdewakanton Sioux who resided in Minnesota on May 20, 1886.

After 1886, only the Mdewakanton who had remained in Minnesota could politically claim Mdewakanton identity. These people are the Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux. Yet, Indian agents who base their opinions on careless scholarly narratives instead of the federal legal documents have helped destroy this community of people, who suffered beyond human understanding to maintain their identity as Mdewakanton Sioux. Federal agents have convinced themselves that the Mdewakanton and the Santee are one and the same people. To bolster their opinions, they quote flawed scholarly narratives. In the existing literature, characterizations of Sioux political identity depend upon whether scholarly renderings or legal and political documents have informed the narrative. For example, the scholarly Handbook of American Indians provides inaccurate, conflicting information on the identity of the Santee. Varying the spelling from Issati to Isanyati to Santee, the Handbook uses Santee as a gloss to provide patently false information about the Mdewakanton and other Dakota tribes:...

[sara]

I get your frustration Tamara.
I and several Mdewakanton who live in Santee Nebraska had long discussions about 2 years ago about Dr Buttes writings.

THere anger comes from her saying they were seperate from the MN Mdewakanton. They were closely related.
A brother was in MN and his sister was at Santee Agency in NE.
Sometimes a parent was in Santee and there children in MN.
Some lived at Santee Agency but sent there children to school in MN.
I have not found records for Santee signing treaties in 1830's.
THere is mention at an earlier date that the Santee failed to make it to a treaty signing, however I think this was an error by the US government at the time.
I always planned on researching the mention of Santee in 1830 government negotiations, just have not got to it yet.

THe census records taken in Santee from 1866-1875 clearly state.
Mdewakanton Wahpekute at the Santee Agency.
I think in the future the members at Santee NE will change ther name to the Mdewakanton of Nebraska.

If anyones identity was heisted it certainly was the Mdewakanton sent to Niobrara Nebraska.

[denney]

This sentence alone what you wrote tells it all with afew words added at the time it happened-

If anyones identity was heisted it certainly was the Mdewakanton sent to Niobrara Nebraska. Without any say to being moved.

sara said:

I get your frustration Tamara.
I and several Mdewakanton who live in Santee Nebraska had long discussions about 2 years ago about Dr Buttes writings.

THere anger comes from her saying they were seperate from the MN Mdewakanton. They were closely related.
A brother was in MN and his sister was at Santee Agency in NE.
Sometimes a parent was in Santee and there children in MN.
Some lived at Santee Agency but sent there children to school in MN.
I have not found records for Santee signing treaties in 1830's.
THere is mention at an earlier date that the Santee failed to make it to a treaty signing, however I think this was an error by the US government at the time.
I always planned on researching the mention of Santee in 1830 government negotiations, just have not got to it yet.

THe census records taken in Santee from 1866-1875 clearly state.
Mdewakanton Wahpekute at the Santee Agency.
I think in the future the members at Santee NE will change ther name to the Mdewakanton of Nebraska.

If anyones identity was heisted it certainly was the Mdewakanton sent to Niobrara Nebraska.

[hermin1]

Tamara and Sara: You have hit the nail on the head.
Tamara did Buttes give valid references for herallegations, in that goofy book of hers?
If anyone has clouded the issue, it is Buttes herself.
and there was no census done in 1886 of the Mdewakantons.
the Mormons will confirm this. A friend had asked at their Utal Archivesto see it, and they told her there was no such thing .it was done in 1885 and sent in to Washington in 1886.
And as Tamara and I have found, there was some federal aid, albeit not much, given to someof those whostayed in Minnesota in 1865/66. And there was some allotmentssupposed to be given out, but weren't, for different reasons on at least 2 occassions, prior to 1904.(Ref. Old Betsey The Life And Times Of a Famous Dakota Woman and Her Family. Diedrich.1995)
In point of fact, Buttes' ancestor himself, John Bluestone was one of those imprisoned at Mankato. I am not clear though, if hewas sent to Davenport or not. Sara would know.
According to Diedrich, he stayed in Minnesota.

[tamara]

I read identity heist at MKLaw.com and Sara, well said. I am surprised at some of the focus I see in her writings. It seems strange to perpetuate and support the idea that the government determines what one is. My ancestor was Mdewakanton and what indian blood he had was not mixed with anyother band. When he arrived with sisseton wife in Sisseton Reservation, he was not accepted as a sisseton, in fact supplies given to him were taken from him and full-blooded David Greycloud as they were Mde and not sisseton.

[tamara]

sadly the idea of this perspective feels opressive and unacceptable. my family knows what they are as many sioux families do. We may reside on a reservation, but our oral histories are strong and carry down. My aunts knew they were told their paternal line was Standing Buffalo and fortunately we were able to document it before that knowledge was lost, and now are able to pass it down to the next generations. They also knew full well that their maternal line was mdewakanton, and care that it be said with the correct pronounciation. So for people like them, the idea of being told they are NOT mdewakanton by these terms is unthinkable.

Tamara

[tamara]

I found it also very interesting to read her resume and education and see that she studied and wrote about the impact of gaming agreements and its impact on soverign rights. It would seem that this will be the key that they wish to use to argue the communities soverignty and force them into the lawsuit by a ruling that they do not have soverign immunity. This is something I do not support and would appear to be something that she is very knowledgable about. Sort of looks like it was in the plans from the beginning. This is also the part that Montana spoke to Lettow about in such a manner that some might have thought he appeared to be not as knowledgeable on the issue, turns out to be the exact opposite, he certainly knew what he was saying and doing. His words must have done some "damage" in Kaardal's eyes as he quickly states to the Judge "Hey hold on a minute!" and proceeds to try to turn the focus back to the perspective of the communities having no sovereign rights...

[tamara]

Here is a question for the researchers on those that stayed in Minnesota. In the clause of the removal act that states that there are exceptions made for those Loyal or Friendly Sioux to remain and they do, who do you think they are?

I am asking for the Knowledge of the many people on this board that read and read and read. Read books and historical documents, study annuity rolls and names. Track and Trace families. I am asking you.
When you think of the families and individuals who remain in Minnesota after the Removal Act, after the people are sent to Davenport, Santee, Crow Creek. Who remains in the period of time from 1863-1866. I am not asking for documented proof as we know how difficult it is to find and from what we can gather. I am
asking for your best very educated guess.

I will start with a few names and please tell me if you think this is not correct:

Taopi
Wabasha
Robertsons
Freniers
Simon Anawangmani

[tokakte]

Tamara--
Dr. Buttes' writings are highly subjective and woefully lacking in historical accuracy. I cite my own family as evidence: John Frazier, son of Jack Frazier, was removed to Nebraska. His younger children, Agnes and Julia, and Maggie were born in Nebraska, not MN. He moved back to MN with the younger of two wives and had his last child, a son named James, in MN. My point is that many families moved back to MN after having been removed to NB and were enrolled in 1886 and in 1889. This was also true of Oliver Moore (another ggrandfater) who was one of the original MN allottees. Dr. Buttes states, in effect, that the MN Dakota speakers remained hermetically sealed and pristine for generations. Nonsense! They and the Nebraska Dakota were are are the same people. If our genealogical work of the two years has no other good result, it should disabuse people of the notion that the MN Dakotas were the sole "keepers of the flame". Don't get me wrong. I am delighted to have identified my MN relatives, and I hope that this lawsuit brings about some real healing in their communities. But they is "us", and we is "them"!

[tamara]

tokakte said:

Tamara--
Dr. Buttes' writings are highly subjective and woefully lacking in historical accuracy. I cite my own family as evidence: John Frazier, son of Jack Frazier, was removed to Nebraska. His younger children, Agnes and Julia, and Maggie were born in Nebraska, not MN. He moved back to MN with the younger of two wives and had his last child, a son named James, in MN. My point is that many families moved back to MN after having been removed to NB and were enrolled in 1886 and in 1889. This was also true of Oliver Moore (another ggrandfater) who was one of the original MN allottees. Dr. Buttes states, in effect, that the MN Dakota speakers remained hermetically sealed and pristine for generations. Nonsense! They and the Nebraska Dakota were are are the same people. If our genealogical work of the two years has no other good result, it should disabuse people of the notion that the MN Dakotas were the sole "keepers of the flame". Don't get me wrong. I am delighted to have identified my MN relatives, and I hope that this lawsuit brings about some real healing in their communities. But they is "us", and we is "them"!

Tokate
Thanks you so much. I find this very powerful and reaffirming in my belief that WE the familes know our own histories. Regardless of what we are told. Seems to me, we need to look to ourselves for historical accuracy and not to the government or elsewhere. Again, I thank you so much for sharing your words with me and others.

Tamara

[bazilecreekhusker]

My Great Grandfather Mazadidi said, "I am Mdewakanton." His bonafides? He was sentenced to be "Hung by the neck until he was dead." by the Minnesota Kangaroo Kourt. He was sent to prison instead, his wife and family to a concentration camp, and the family was removed to SANTEE, Nebraska.

I have always stated tbat I am Mdewakanton Santee Dakota and I am a member of the Santee Sioux Nation.

I agree with SARA, "I think in the future the members at Santee NE will change ther name to the Mdewakanton of Nebraska."

Frankly, I think that will be a wonderful event and a step forward for our Nation.

MIKE

[tamara]

bazilecreekhusker said:

My Great Grandfather Mazadidi said, "I am Mdewakanton." His bonafides? He was sentenced to be "Hung by the neck until he was dead." by the Minnesota Kangaroo Kourt. He was sent to prison instead, his wife and family to a concentration camp, and the family was removed to SANTEE, Nebraska.

I have always stated tbat I am Mdewakanton Santee Dakota and I am a member of the Santee Sioux Nation.

I agree with SARA, "I think in the future the members at Santee NE will change ther name to the Mdewakanton of Nebraska."

Frankly, I think that will be a wonderful event and a step forward for our Nation.

MIKE

Thank you very much as well. It would seem that when one sees ones ancestor on a document such as 1860 Mdewakanton Roll, it would be impossible to think of them as anything but. I think it does honor to your ancestor Mazadidi to refer to your tribal affiliation as such. Your family is certainly one known to be knowledgable about your own history and I can recall some years back seeing an invitation to a Mazadidi gathering in the hands of a very young girl (my niece) who knew from even it alone who her people were. I learned the name Mazadidi, years before, I ever saw the words Wolfchild vs U. S. Again , I thank for your sharing your words and knowledge and am truly blessed by this boards existence to be allowed to obtain statements on this subject by men such as Tokakte and yourself.

Tamara

[tamara]

- who do you think remained during the period after the removal? those that struggled to stay, not those that came back.

Would it be a fair guess to say the Shoto's?

[jazzdog]

Tamara

this is an important post. I think the people may finally be getting the overall picture. Remember that what matters is the anscestors and their and our heritage and history......people are out there to discredit and destroy family lineages for reasons we now cannot rationally comprehend. It appears that there certainly is a movement amongst those that are presently alleged members of the three Minnesota Mdewakanton communities and those that have become a part of the "accepted" version of proposed lineal descendants of the Minnesota Mdewakanton descendants, to try to close the class of individuals that are rightful and justifiable lineal descendants of the same people because of greed and exclusiviness principles. Why do people of the same lineage fight so hard to deprive the recognition and rights of those rightfully deserving descendants of the Minnesota Mdewakanton peoples that exist everywhere? Is it the fear that if the books are opened on who really is a true lineal descendant may creep into the upper chambers of those that have controlled the governance and eventual wealth of the strategic lands and resulting casino wealth that ensued? If the true books are really opened wide, will they really want that to happen once it does inevitably happen? That issue has nothing to do with the Wolfchild case and those that know, readily recognize that fact. However, the growing storm of the research and discovery process opened up by the issue, involving innocent and eager individuals who honestly believe in their own individual heritage to the just, righteous, honest past, only seek the rightness of the remedy and the correcting of the wrongful and insane version that has been written about our anscestors up to this point in time. People who are only concerned about money and material gain, are eventually exposed and dealt with accordingly. The people that are true to their beliefs and their honest convictions to claim and correct history, will eventually prevail.....but only after much toil and personal reflection on the issues that truly matter. A Court can make a wrong decision that affects thousands.....our individual and collective minds and souls working together to rediscover the truth of the times, can actually make and help a rejuvination and reunification of the truth in the face of greed and anarchy. Do not lose hope in your endeavors to uncover the truth. Keep working and do not accept preliminary obstacles that attempt to discourage you in that endeavor. We see what we see.....we feel what we feel.....does it feel right? Does it feel worth it? Think back to what our anscestors saw and felt back in 1850, in 1859, in 1862, in 1863, in 1869, in 1875, in 1880, in 1885, in 1888, in 1889, in 1891 and beyond.....You are who you are according to who you are......you are who you are according to the footprints and echoes that were laid out before you by those that bore and loved you long ago.......let us try to honor those voices and memories that we are so lucky to have, to help each other to realize the golden goal of the knowledge of who each one of us truly is. Please help each other when we can. We only exist but for each other.......take care and stay strong.....


Jazzdog

[tamara]

tamara said:

Here is a question for the researchers on those that stayed in Minnesota. In the clause of the removal act that states that there are exceptions made for those Loyal or Friendly Sioux to remain and they do, who do you think they are?

I am asking for the Knowledge of the many people on this board that read and read and read. Read books and historical documents, study annuity rolls and names. Track and Trace families. I am asking you.
When you think of the families and individuals who remain in Minnesota after the Removal Act, after the people are sent to Davenport, Santee, Crow Creek. Who remains in the period of time from 1863-1866. I am not asking for documented proof as we know how difficult it is to find and from what we can gather. I am
asking for your best very educated guess.

I will start with a few names and please tell me if you think this is not correct:

Taopi
Wabasha
Robertsons
Freniers
Simon Anawangmani

This is entirely arrogant on my part and shouldnt be allowed but I am going to quote myself, and answer my own question with the following link memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/062/0500/05420514.tif

This is amazing information and I am pleased to have found it as it appears it gives by far the best explaination as to whom were considered "loyal" after the events of 1862...

I would love some input on this.

Tamara
(hermin1 I emailed a different version to you as it was what I had originally intended to send)

[tamara]

I love it!! -now if I could get it transcribed so as to be able to view the content better and the names translated!!!

[sav]

Actually, Dr. Buttes does state somewhere in her book that the only difference is a political difference. Pertaining to Santee Dakota, & Mdewakanton. I say, get rid of the government's "Sub-Divide & Conquer" tactic (The Political Difference)
& then you're left with simply just the Sioux that spoke the "D" dialect. Also known as Dakota. But god forbid you go there, cuz then you got the Sisseton Dakota. Or this kind of Dakota, & That Dakota.
Now I do understand, how many historcial documents & writing have clouded the identity of the Dakota Sioux. I can see why it's not trustworthy, nor acceptable for a historical document to be accurate. With that said, I would like to share this bit from a book I'm sure many of us have read, seen, &/or own. The book is "A Dakota - English Dictionary". Written by Stephen R. Riggs.

I've noticed after reading the Foreward. & moving on to Note By The Director. Right after this note, there's a small excerpt or summary. & right there in the first paragraph. Is something written that all could sensibly be concerned about. I won't type the whole paragraph. As I want the reader's to focus & digest the last sentence. It is as folllows.

While the work of Mr. Riggs referred to in the preface quoted was styled a grammar and dictionary of the Dakota language, most of the entries in the dictionary were in the Santee dialect, as that was the dialect of those Dakota who had been reached by Mr. Riggs an his associates. Only here and there were a few words in the Sisseton, Yankton, and Mdewakantonwan, though A. L. Riggs now shows that the Mdewakantonwan were the original Santee.

Now after typing this & reading it again, just now, I've now realized that it's suggesting there's a difference in the dialect of Sisseton & Mdewakantonwan. However, it's all based on the so called "Santee Dialect". Now I'm getting confused. What happened to the "D" dialect? Hmmm. Ok, I guess my point is that it's obvious, the Mdewakantonwan were the first Dakota to have ever been encountered. & the whole "D" dialect is being based solely on the Mdewakantonwan, or oh wait a minute. It's the Santee dialect.

I decided to post this, since it seemed to go along well with Historical Accuracy. Not only this but it's opened my eyes to all the things you'll find that could be inacurrate. However, I must say, that last sentence really makes me wonder?.....

[mdenney]

How long have you read this material? This does not get submitted during this case does it? It would surely help the credibility for our family would it not?? Give me more info on this...PLEASE?

[tamara]

Interesting, Sav, and compells me to get my precious copy of Dakota Text and Grammer down off of the "big bookcase" and read further. Certainly there are larger, unclear, aspects regarding identity, but again my concern is the issue at hand. The perpetuating the governments wish to determine the identity of a group of people. Sadly, although I appreciate Mr Kitto's statement referring to his tribal affiliation by acknowledging that his ancestors were Mdewakanton and residing on the Santee Reservation as Mdewakanton Santee, Dr Butte's writings actually call such "laughable" when referring to Meyers description and use of the same term. It does not seem to be a perspective that makes any allowances for understanding. Seems such interpretations could be made in a manner that showed a little more respect for those who were FORCED to survive elsewhere and did not choose to labelled anything other than what they knew themselves to be.

[tamara]

Just found it recently,"the Jamie", and have submitted it to be used if possible. Seems valuable to me and I will supply the foundation for it. I am pretty excited about it and happy happy happy to have found it! Who knew??!!! Give a pretty good picture of what is happening doesnt it? I am delighted purely from a research and "knowledge sponge" perspective, but if it could help establish some much needed accuracy, I would love that as well.