Erasing History: The Case of Minnesota’s Father Hennepin

Version française ici

Over the summer of 2019, I did a tour of the capitol building in the state where I grew up – Minnesota. Touring the hallways and the various rooms, the words Étoile du Nord are present in several places, as well as four names appearing in the Supreme Court chamber: Hennepin, Du Luth, La Salle and Perrot.

In Minnesota, you usually hear about the Scandinavian-ness of the state and people, which is true. Many people are of Swedish and Norwegian ancestry – myself included. However, one almost never hears about Minnesota's French Canadian-ness. There are dozens of lakes, rivers, towns and counties that bear French names, three of the larger cities, Saint Paul, Duluth and Saint Cloud were founded by French Canadians and the flag bears the emblem “L’étoile du nord” (The North Star).

I had caught a similar thought in the documentary, Un rêve américain, in which writer Philip Marchand highlighted what seemed to be a deliberate erasing of the French imprint in North America:

“Growing up in New England, the version of history given was that the brave English landed on the sea coast, crossed the Appalacians and made it to the Mississippi River, through what was presented as untamed wilderness. But the fact is that when the English came, there were already many French/Métis settlements and towns. The Americans have almost erased this civilization from their history.”

During the tour of the Capitol, in the Governor's Reception Room, two of the paintings were missing :  The Signing of the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and Father Hennepin Discovering St. Anthony Falls.

Father Hennepin Discovering St. Anthony Falls depicts the first time Europeans encountered the Mississippi’s only waterfall, Saint Anthony Falls. The painting also includes a group of Dakota and one European companion (Michel Accault, a fellow voyageur). Father Hennepin is blessing the waterfall, which would later power many mills and breweries in downtown Minneapolis, while the others are resting after the portage.

Some activists find the painting off-putting. Artist Andrea Carlson called it a European fantasy of faux-classical style that ends up being super propaganda (against Amerindians?) and sees “romantic fantasies of the genocide of a people.”

In a small group discussion during a public input meeting in Minneapolis, one citizen made some vague blanket statement about how it represents a “naïve, skewed vision,” while another suggested they could be moved to the basement of the Minnesota History Center in boxes marked “past misunderstandings.” Father Mike Tegeder, pastor of Gichitwaa Kateri in Minneapolis, thinks that Amerindians should “get back to the history of things to fight discrimination and revitalize pride in their culture” and that “we have to educate ourselves because we all have blinders on.”

Alright, but does he, or any of the other critics know anything about the French aspect of Minnesota’s history and how distinctions need to be made between the English, French and Spanish on North American soil? Or are these grandious, general declarations about “education” and “history” just filler for some kind of other political agenda? Of course, none of this is considered hate against Catholics or French Canadians.

In a letter to the Capitol Preservation Commission art subcommittee, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe calls the painting of Father Hennepin “offensive” and “traumatizing”. They also find especially insulting the term “discovery” when referring to Father Hennepin’s discovery/blessing of St. Anthony Falls because Amerindian tribes had occupied the area for some 12,000 years. Anton Treuer, a Bemidji State University professor of Ojibwe descent claims that:

“there is a documented history that goes 11,000 years in Minnesota and we start the history with the arrival of the first white guy. And we celebrate the suppression of indigenous people as progress.”

I wonder how they know what was going on 11-12,000 years ago? Is Treuer referring to archaeological evidence attesting a presence going back 11,000 years in Minnesota. Or is he merely referring to oral tradition? If so, how reliable is that? I don’t know about other people, but I find the rancor in his voice particularly deplorable when Treuer lumps together all of his political adversaries as “whites”. In general, these people seem to have little to no general conception of Minnesota’s history. Everyone keeps repeating certain buzz words like “offensive,” “white,” “traumatizing” or “genocide”. Jim Bear Jacobs, from the new-agey sounding Interfaith Network initiative and Healing Minnesota Stories, is no exception:

“The way natives are portrayed in the Capitol is incredibly inaccurate and offensive, and indeed some of the work is even traumatizing and adversely affects Native Americans, […] depicting them running around half-naked and who can’t properly dress themselves.”

Jacobs seems to be one of the people who think it’s awful that the woman in the painting is topless. So, is he suggesting that Amerindians dressing in such a way is improper? Isn’t this just an example of someone judging clothing by 21st century Anglo-American standards? Did he think they dressed in tennis shoes and wore cable-knit sweaters and cotton pants in the 17th century?

However, women actually were often topless in Amerindian cultures. If it were such a taboo, why would these Witchita indians pose topless in a photograph?

Yes, maybe someone will say that these Witchita indians are not Dakota/Sioux, but why should I make distinctions between them when they themselves make no distinction between European descended people, like Anglophones, French-Canadians, Acadians, Spanish, Mexican, Norwegian...?

What’s more, French historian Gilles Havard asserts that, while the practices and dress varied greatly from one amerindian nation to another, Sioux women had been known to sing naked for hours, from their canoes, to encourage their men going into battle. The book Indian Dances of North America by Reginald and Gladys Laubin, on page 505, tells the story of an old Sioux Indian, who stood outside a government building at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, in subzero weather, with only a buffalo robe wrapped around her waist.

Many traditional, non-Western cultures go topless, and even in some Western cultures. I saw a lot of breasts during my two years in West Africa. Furthermore, don’t radical feminists say nowadays that toplessness is freedom? (well, they also say that the burqa is freedom...) If we’re going to revise all history with the values of certain activists, then shouldn’t the topless woman in the aforementioned painting be considered progressive and forward thinking?

***

So what are these people really upset about? The real reasons they want to remove this painting, even though they claim to know Minnesota’s history, are the current political and social trends that place all European nations in North America as killers of the helpless Amerindian victim. Nowadays, we are spoon fed this false dialectic of “white” against “non-white.” In the case of French-Canadians (or Quebecers), they cannot be reduced to mere “whites.” The same is true for Scandinavians. Likewise, it is wrong to put all nations of European origin in the same basket, under the deceptive label of “white.” Yes, some Amerindian nations in North America were subjected to horrific crimes and genocide (usually by the English, Spanish or intertribal conflicts). However, somebody needs to rectify the history of Amerindians and their interactions with francophones, both in and outside Québec, ever since the French first set foot on this continent. But this doesn’t fit the current societal narrative.

Do any of the above critics have historical knowledge of the different approaches between the English, the French and the Spanish regarding Amerindians? The French could not have even attempted to exterminate them, simply because they did not have the means nor the population to do so. Moreover, they conducted business with them (the fur trade – voyageurs and coureurs de bois), so why would they try to wipe out their business partners? They also intermarried with them, but who in Minnesota knows about the Métis people of the Red River Valley?

All that being said, when the scales fall from one’s eyes, what is the actual history depicted in Father Hennepin Discovering St. Anthony Falls?

Late in the 17th century, the Dakota entered into an alliance with French fur-trading merchants. The first recorded encounter between the Sioux and the French occurred when Pierre-Esprit Radisson and Médard des Groseilliers reached what is now Wisconsin, during the winter of 1659–60. Later visiting French traders and missionaries included Daniel Greysolon du Luth and Pierre-Charles Le Sueur (many Minnesota municipalities, counties and rivers use their names today).

According to the book North Woods River: The St. Croix River in Upper Midwest History by Eileen M. McMahon and Theodore J. Karamanski, the Dakota began to resent the Ojibwe trading with some of their hereditary enemies and, as a result of inter-ethnic battles, they lost their traditional lands around Leech Lake and Mille Lacs Lake in central Minnesota. They were forced south along the Mississippi and St. Croix River Valleys. These intertribal conflicts also made it dangerous for European fur traders.

For example, in 1736 a group of Sioux beheaded Jean Baptiste de La Vérendrye and twenty other voyageurs and Cree traders on a Lake of the Woods island (now known as Massacre Island) for having allied with enemy tribes. The site is marked by a large wooden cross in the middle of the island. This incident sparked decades of war between the Sioux (or Dakota) and the Ojibwe, who were allied with the French and the Cree. However, trade with the French continued until the British military conquest of New France in Quebec City during the French and Indian War in 1759.

And what about Father Louis Hennepin in all of this? In 1675, at the request of Louis XIV, four missionaries were sent to New France (a territory spaning from Quebec to the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico). Father Hennepin began his work in Quebec City, frequenting the surrounding Amerindian tribes and learning their languages. In 1678, Hennepin was chosen to accompany René-Robert Cavelier de La Salle on his exploration of the Mississippi (two of the four names appearing on the walls of Minnesota’s Supreme Court chamber).

In 1680, while looking for the source of the Mississippi River, Hennepin and two of his French companions (Michel Accault, depicted in the painting, and Antoine Auguelle) were captured by a Dakota community near Mille Lacs Lake. A few months later, Hennepin and Auguelle received permission from the Dakota to canoe down the Mississippi to the mouth of the Wisconsin River. During that time, they first encountered a waterfall on the Mississippi that Hennepin named in honor of his patron saint, St. Anthony of Padua (also the saint to whom you pray when you lose something).

Meanwhile, Daniel Greysolon du Luth (the city of Duluth and the Montréal street are named after him) heard rumors that the three men were being held captive. On July 25, 1680, Greysolon arrived at the Dakota village to negotiate the release of Hennepin and the two others. By August, the three captives had begun their journey back to the Saint Lawrence Valley (Québec).

Three years later, while in France, Hennepin published an account of this time. He stated that the Dakota treated him well, noting that they were most interested in new technologies and in the sharing of knowledge across cultures. Hennepin’s writings document Dakota customs, way of life and that surrounding tribes considered Dakota warriors to be exceptionally brave and skilled in their usage of the bow and arrow. (Minnesota Historical Society)

In 1930, the city of Minneapolis raised a statue in his honor, one of the city’s major streets, Hennepin Avenue bears his name as well as the surrounding county and Father Hennepin State Park in south Minneapolis.

In Québec, it is somewhat well-known that the relationship between French Canadians and Amerindians was that of trade and generally positive (they wanted technology like fire arms and cast-iron kettles and we wanted beaver pelts and knowledge of waterway access). Anglophones are largely unaware of this and, as a result, “whites” are then all lumped together as merciless aggressors.

***

So where will the two “controversial” paintings go? According to the (recently deceased) State Representative Diane Loeffler, former tri-chair of the Minnesota Historical Society art subcommittee : “If 2 percent of the population is offended by how they are represented in the art, then that is 2 percent too many.” This minority-rule worldview seems to have won out in Minnesota, as the two paintings in question are now in a rather isolated, upper-floor room, awaiting their final judgement. How democratic.