Sites of Imperialism
Do Ft. Snelling and Guantánamo continue to function as sites of U.S. empire and imperialism? For the purpose of this project, we use the term “sites of imperialism” to describe places that either continue to normalize or condone U.S. imperial pasts and presents, or are actively engaging in imperialism.
Is Guantánamo an illegally occupied territory? Although a treaty established U.S. occupation of the space, the negotiations surrounding the Platt amendment were questionable, and Cuba protests the current occupation. Also, what does it mean that U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution do not apply there? How is the United States using its “exceptional” status to indefinitely hold detainees without charge, even after many have been cleared for release?
Although Ft. Snelling has been a part of the United States since 1805, we have to consider how legal the initial acquisition was. The treaty of 1805 was signed with less than the required signatures, and the U.S. government paid Dakota people 1/100th of what was promised to them. Does this mean that Ft. Snelling is built on illegally occupied territory? Moreover, as one of the first forts on the western “frontier,” it is also important to consider Fort Snelling’s role in the U.S. imperial project of western expansion.
Representation of Dakota peoples and the U.S. Dakota War has substantially improved in the last four years. Even within the last year, the Minnesota Historical Society has added additional information about the U.S- Dakota War in the form of six panels which narrate the events surrounding 1862. Previously, the only discussion of the conflict was two signs outside the fort. The interpretation of history at Ft. Snelling is also heavily reliant on interpreters, meaning that some visitors, at least, are likely to receive more information than is in signs or panels, provided they choose to ask questions. Ft. Snelling State Park also actively interprets the plot of land Dakota people were held on, but this site is not managed by the Minnesota Historical Society.
Still, a concentration camp is a momentous part of any site’s history, and despite the significance of the event, Dakota people and the U.S.-Dakota War are largely underrepresented at Ft. Snelling. Furthermore, the panels in the U.S.-Dakota War room, which bear most of the responsibility for telling the story of Dakota people, seem to avoid the more difficult parts of the history of detention at Ft. Snelling, specifically details that portray the U.S. government and early settlers of Minnesota in a negative light.
Given this information, can we call Ft. Snelling a site of imperialism? The repression of a more difficult narrative at best certainly normalizes U.S. empire and condones American imperial actions at worst. By focusing on positive patriotic narratives that then erase the violent, difficult narratives of Minnesota history, the site continues to promote American exceptionalism, and excuse, even celebrate histories and the present state of U.S. empire and imperialism.
| Previous page on path | Disparate Rememberings, page 4 of 4 | Path end, return home |
Discussion of "Sites of Imperialism"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...