The Treaty Story By Wazyatawin Analysis

“The Treaty Story”, By the Minnesota Historical Society, and “What Does Justice Look Like?” by Wazyatawin are two pieces about Native American treaties when Minnesota was first being established. They both discuss the initial discovery of the land by fur traders and European settlers in the 1700’s and on, as well as the first communication between natives and white settlers. Both are credible, factual, but they differ when it comes to the speaker, the audience, and the word choice used throughout each text. “The Treaty Story” is an online interactive text meant for 6th grade students in Minneapolis Public Schools who are in the Minnesota history course; therefore the Minnesota Historical Society wrote it to be as unbiased as possible. On the

The Minnesota Historical Society is a very reliable source with a mission to provide an unbiased account of history, while Wazyatawin’s heritage as a native American motivates her to tell her deeply rooted opinion on the mass genocide and abuse of those native to Minnesota. Both of the writers mentioned the initial trade in 1805, but the way in which they stated it reflects their viewpoint clearly. As stated by the Minnesota Historical Society, “Beginning in 1805, Indians in the area that became Minnesota agreed to make concessions of land for specific used by the U.S. government. In exchange, they received money, goods, and various promises.” (63) Wazyatawin essentially stated the same thing, but in a different manner. “Consequently, Indigenous nation after Indigenous nation has ceded lands and resources for promises the U.S. never fulfilled. Or, such fraudulent tactics were used to obtain Indigenous signatures that the treaties never should have been ratified.” (68-69) Looking at the two quotes, there is a clear difference in speakers and their experiences. In a way, Wazyatawin uses pathos to appeal to the readers about the unjust ways the settlers obtained land that is now Minnesota, while the Minnesota Historical Society strictly uses ethos to persuade readers that their version is correct, yet it could be missing key information. A broad similarity these two authors share, however, is their desire

The audience Wazyatawin attracts may be allured to her PhD, or her more honest account of history, while the Minnesota Historical society is designed to attract 6th graders in Minneapolis who are in the Minnesota history course. They are ingesting this information for what is most likely the first time. Wazyatawin states “Ultimately, to obtain the necessary signatures, U.S. negotiators… had to repeatedly threaten the Dakota with the withholding of rations (rations theoretically guaranteed from previous treaties) or threaten to take the land by force leaving the Dakota with no compensation.” (70). The Minnesota Historical Society states the same message essentially. “Pressured by traders and threatened with military force, the Dakota were forced to cede nearly all their land in Minnesota and eastern Dakota in the 1851 treaties of Traverse des Sioux and Mendota.” (65) Wazyatawin’s statement is bitter and negative, not to say that the Minnesota Historical Society’s isn’t, but hers is more so. Evidently Wazyatawin writes in a more aggressive manner to appeal to her strongly opinionated audience, and herself, in comparison the the slightly more modest version of this message as presented by the Minnesota Historical Society. Another aspect to consider is the word choice in the pieces, and how that affects the overall