38
The title "38" is significant because it represents the number of Dakota men who were hanged. By using this title, the author emphasizes both the specific scale of this event and the individual lives lost, showing deep sympathy for those who were killed.
The memorial for the Dakota 38 is not an object inscribed with words, but an act.
While the U.S. government often ignores this history—failing to include it in school textbooks or provide any formal recognition—the Dakota people have created their own, more meaningful way to remember.
But, on second thought, the words “Let them eat grass” click the gears of the poem into place.
The author uses 'grass' as a powerful symbol that ties everything together. It starts as a tool for cruelty—Myrick’s dismissive, dehumanizing remark that the Dakota should 'eat grass'—and becomes a site of poetic justice when his body is found with grass in his mouth. By weaving this symbol throughout the piece, she reminds us that the fight is ultimately about the land: the land that was stolen from the Dakota people and the grass that remains, a silent witness to their history.
When Myrick’s body was found, his mouth was stuffed with grass. I am inclined to call this act by the Dakota warriors a poem. There’s irony in their poem.
Not sure why the author says there's irony, when it is clear to the reader that it is ironic that Myrick's body was found with grass in his mouth because he said the people could it grass.
When the Dakota people were starving, as you may remember, government traders would not extend store credit to “Indians.”
By using the label 'Indians,' the U.S. government reduced a sovereign people to a single, imposed term. This was oppression at its best—a calculated use of language that denied the Dakota people their humanity, making it easier to justify their land theft, starvation, and exile
Eventually, the US Cavalry came to Mnisota to confront the Uprising.
The author chooses to spell it 'Mnisota' rather than using the official name, 'Minnesota.' By doing this, she reminds the reader that the land had its own identity and history long before the U.S. government arrived. It’s her way of honoring the original Dakota presence and highlighting how the U.S. distorted the truth through 'trickery' and broken treaties.
Keep in mind, I am not a historian.
Author states that they are not a historian, but could have done some research on the topic in terms of a paper or had ancestors that lived through the events and were retold.
For example, all sentences will begin with capital letters. Likewise, the history of the sentence will be honored by ending each one with appropriate punctuation such as a period or question mark, thus bringing the idea to (momentary) completion.
I' is first-person, and the author starts off by focusing on strict grammatical and writing rules to show how serious and careful she is about telling this history accurately. By sticking to these rules, she emphasizes that this is not a creative story, but a record of real, painful facts that deserve to be treated with respect.
During the 1800s, when the US expanded territory, they “purchased” land from the Dakota people as well as the other tribes.
The author uses " " several times to come off as rather cocky or showing a negative attitude towards the U.S. of stealing land from the Sioux people. Could the author be Sioux?
The Dakota 38 refers to thirty eight Dakota men who were executed by hanging, under orders from President Abraham Lincoln.
This historical allusion was entirely new to me. It highlights how history is often 'covered up'—we are taught to prioritize 'important' milestones like the Emancipation Proclamation, while events like this are pushed aside. By ignoring the Dakota 38, we sanitize our history and avoid facing the reality of our past.