A Sunday Free Press story about Mankato's place as the site of the largest mass execution in U.S. history raised questions about just how far we're willing to go to "show and tell" a history that remains very ugly in the minds of many.
The timber that was used as part of the gallows where 38 Dakota were hanged is apparently tucked away in some storage area under supervision of the Blue Earth County Historical Society.
Historical society officials says it's not clear whether the timber is authentic and that its historical roots can not be easily determined. But a story in the 1927 Free Press indicated it had been given to the historical society by the University of Minnesota. They had apparently received it from longtime Mankato man who had salvaged it and used it in his hardware store for several years.
The controversy of course, as with much of history, is the message one will be sending by using such an artifact in a historical display.
One has to be careful not to "celebrate" the instruments of hanging, but at the same time, one cannot hide a history just because it is unpleasant.
So what would be accomplished by displaying the timber or, for that matter, the noose from one of the 38 that is in the possession of the Minnesota Historical Society? That organization also does not plan on displaying it.
I compare it to the telling of a compelling, yet unsettling newspaper story, of which we've done many over the years. A gruesome murder, an unspeakable act against children. These are never easy stories to do.
The reasoning might be useful in the case of the historical exhibits. Will the display of these artifacts draw such an emotional response that it will, in effect, mute the other more valuable lessons to be learned from history?
Or will the emotions the exhibit might evoke have a deeper impact on our thoughts about such violence going forward?
It's a tough call. It's a judgment call.
But in the end, I always ask: Do we gain by having less information or do we gain by having more? We'll never be able to control how people feel about facts and historical exhibits, we can only hope a larger number will gain from the information and, as we say with history, be destined not to repeat it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Have you asked the Native American Community how they feel about this? Every individual will have his or her own opinion what they feel is best to do in this situation. I agree with someone who commented where they stated that we shouldn't whitewash our history. There is some truth to that statement. I went to the Holocaust Museum out in Washington D.C. when I was in sixth grade. I walked through this one part that showed video footage of the camps and what they went through and then there was this other part where you saw the shoes. It was hard to stomach and see. When you see it in person, it is so different than from when people talk about it. It is emotional. I think showing this will definitely cause strong emotion and the image itself will stick with you forever. You will never forget it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have learned a lot in my ethnic studies class. If I take on this major, I will learn parts of history that was never discussed in high school or even in U.S. History at the college level. It is important for people to hear the truth. I know some history classes only discuss parts of our history (some of it is biased) and it doesn't show all sides to it. We have discussed some subject matters that may be controversial and sensitive to some people, but to me I think it is important to discuss our history. I have learned so much and I look forward to going to this class twice a week. I know I will come out of these classes more knowledgeable and will have a better understanding in how to help people of different ethnic backgrounds by learning about their history and what they have gone through.
Hi Joe,
ReplyDeleteEither way — whether you say the items should be shown because history must be looked at with courage or they shouldn't be shown because it's too celebratory or painful to show them — misses the point that many Dakota people are trying to make: this is a question of spirituality, or of religion as whites call it. This point is worth pausing on and thinking hard about because it is a completely different way of thinking than we whites are used to.
Many Dakota believe Chaska's noose should be burned because the man's spiritual energy still resides in that bit of rope. He cannot be at rest until the rope is burned in ceremony. For some, this spiritual consideration transcends any other considerations such as the importance of teaching history or showing objects of past oppression so that the white public can learn the truth about how they came to occupy Dakota land.
A friend of mine likened the noose to the Japanese girl's lunchbox with its vaporized contents that was proposed for a museum exhibit about the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian in the 1990s. The Gingrich Congress lobbied hard for this item not to be shown because of the potential "emotional manipulation" of the public. The lunchbox was not displayed.
From the point of view of white American politics and the culture wars it's easy to take a position on displaying the noose or not displaying it. It's another thing altogether to consider respecting what Dakota people are saying about this, apparently from across their own broad political spectrum.