Manipi hena owas'in wicunkiksuyapi

The master narrative surrounding this event reasoned that if Sioux men were savage enough to spontaneously rise up and viciously attack innocent white settlers, the removal of the Dakota was not only warranted, it was also necessary for the safety of the settler families who were only trying to live peacefully while making proper use of the land. [...]the particular brutality shown to Dakota women and children might be deemed unfortunate, but it was still considered an acceptable and understandable response to the savageness of the hostile Indians. Rather than a depiction of them as the defenders of Dakota land and way of life that they were, they were cast as bloodthirsty savages worthy of only contempt and hatred. [...]little comment was made on this first phase of forced removal by those controlling the writing of history. Not only does he discuss the event within a national arena, he also broadens the discussion further by making a connection between the treatment of the Jews under the Nazis and the treatment of the Dakota by the Americans, which he points out fulfills the criteria for genocide under the United Nations (UN) Genocide Convention. Because many Minnesotans are unaccustomed to examining the events of 1862 from this larger perspective, his arguments have met with considerable resistance in some circles. [...]it would be a gesture of reclamation for Dakota people-a means of expressing their heritage and deep connection to the place they know as Minisota Makoce (the land where the waters reflect the skies).