The quote “everything is in the language that we use” is referencing the idea that in the English language there are many synonyms for a specific word. However, each word has a distinct meaning that is subtly different from the previous. For instance, the poem cites the word “unclear” and states it is synonymous with “confused”, but “unclear” implies the situation is ambiguous while “confused” implies that a party did not comprehend the situation. Furthermore, in this context, one word may significantly defuse the severity of the situation while another may clearly display it. The quote refers to the word “treaty” in that while a treaty is “a contract between two sovereign nations”, the use of the word implies that the Natives willingly chose to sign this agreement and downplays the coercion that occurred.
Long Soldier argues that the United States subjected the Natives Americans to unjust treaties in order to acquire their land and obligate the natives to cede their land in the future. Additionally, she wants the reader to understand that while the natives received money in exchange for the land they sacrificed their future income because the land in the treaty contained the hunting grounds which the natives used to live off of. Consequently, the natives starved because they were not able to hunt or acquire credit to purchase food which caused them to attack the settlers to do so. Nevertheless, Long Soldier desires that the readers reflect upon the hanging of the 38 natives in order to prevent the abuse of Native Americans in the future and alter the policy towards them.
I like how in your analysis, you pointed out that the usage of language is very important, especially in this poem. Your explanation of how words can be seemingly similar but have totally different effects really emphasizes how the settlers were able to get away with so many of the atrocious things that were done to the Natives Americans. For example, you pointed out the word “treaty,” and defined it as “a contract between two sovereign nations.” Did the settlers really consider the Natives to be a sovereign nation? In their eyes, were the Natives just a group of nomads who could just wander elsewhere if they were forced to? And also, there is a huge emphasis on language and how language is used in the poem. We must consider that these “treaties” were most likely written or negotiated in English. That’s not the first language for the Natives. Maybe they were being coerced into agreeing to something they did not fully understand yet.
I agree with you that the English language can have several different meanings and interpretations as I have seen this play a role in this poem as well as several others. I found it odd too that the agreement was referred to as a treaty, when it was always broken by the US and never treated like a formal agreement. Instead, The Dakota men were treated unfairly as they could not completely understand all the legal aspects that were thrown against them during this time.