Here is a picture of the Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal "Headquarters" as my grandfather used to say.  Most people call it the "Complex" but he was a military man.  I dropped off my study of the Roles and Cultural Practices of Contemporary Ho-Chunk Women at the office of one of the members of the Internal Review Board for the Ho-Chunk Nation.  Sixty-nine pages of information from research done from 2011-2012.  It was a good feeling, though it was done with some trepidation.  I would like to have the approval of the IRB as this would mean that the content cuts cultural mustard.  We shall see.

As I wrote this behemoth it occurred to me that no one has recorded any information about Ho-Chunk women since Paul Radin (1923).  He was a man who obtained his information from other men (usually Ho-Chunk or who spoke Ho-Chunk) who reported their own observations or interpretations about the women.  I am blazing, perhaps that is too strong...how about embarking?  I am embarking on new territory and my research was sorely needed.  My research came from the women themselves via interviews and questionnaires, though I would say that the interviews were more revealing.  For me, my research reflected their voice first and then I synthesized their voice into themes.  The analysis was very revealing as well.

The upshot was this: The Ho-Chunk women I interviewed would do anything to protect their families, their ways and cultural traditions.  The women were from their 20s' to 90s', from all educational levels (normal school to Ph.D.), some spoke Ho-Chunk while others did not, all engaged in some form of cultural practices, some lived on ancestral lands and others did not, they were married, widowed and single and of the twelve women used in this study, four of the twelve heard of GOM.  These women viewed family, language and traditions are their primary concerns and worth every effort to protect, defend and sustain them.  Some of the women in the study SACRIFICED all they had to care for families, immediate and extended.

There were several themes in the study and while I will not go into all of them, one intriguing theme was that there were several women who would not speak ill of their male relatives.  Let me explain.  While their men struggled with finding a job, alcohol or drugs, many of the women would not pass judgement or assign blame to the men.  Instead these women felt that our extreme history was at the root of most if not all of their problems.  Aculturation, cultural appropriation, assimilation, or genocide, call it what you will, but these atrocities are at the root of many a cultural and /or personal identity crises across the Indian nations.

One last theme that surfaced was that today's Ho-Chunk women do not know how to treat a man.  This actually startled me!  This view was held by several women between the ages of 93 - 62.  Nor did they feel that today's Ho-Chunk women knew how to be Ho-Chunk women.  Very interesting!  There are certain cultural and clan teachings that guide the interaction between men and women and also that guide each gender.  Many of these women felt assimilation was at the root of this problem as well.

Much insight was gained.  

What does this have to do with GOM?  The roles and cultural practices of contemporary Ho-Chunk women helped me to understand why GOM would marry outside of her tribe.  She did it to protect her people and her ways.  Marrying outside of the tribe was not uncommon in her day.  The Menominee, the Anishinabe, the Huron, the Pottowatami, the Ottawa, and the Sauk and Fox, also inter-married with the French.  As their landscape was changing, with the fur trade and new people encroaching on their lands, it was evident to see that change was coming, and at times this change at least initially was seen as a benefit for the tribes.  Now, as for her role as chief, well the research plods on.

New info available at the University of Ottawa Archives

It is exciting to know that the French kept records about their activities with the Ho-Chunk as early as the 1712'.  The events that David Smith wrote about in the Winnebago Indian News (no references) regarding the early Ho-Chunk/Winnebagos and GOM in 1737, have been recorded in French by Beauharnois himself.  Awesome.  Though preliminary reviews have not shown GOM's name, there is info about "Puant chefs" and the described events that Smith discussed in his articles compare well with the French writings and the Wisconsin Historical Society (Kellogg) writings.  Not sure where this will lead me since I have sent for 100 pages of information from the University of Ottawa regarding "Puant chefs" and I have over 30 letters written by Beauharnois when he was Governor of New France to pour over using the BING translator.  Additionally, there are several other letters written by the commanders, Lintot and Hacquart, who were at an outpost and heavily engaged in the Fox War, Mesquaki War and so on.

What I have managed to translate so far reveals that the French gave the early Ho-Chunk at Doty Island (GOM) a lot of "marchandise" to gain their favor and maintain relations.  I have come across a permit and a record of Joseph Decarries (spelled differently again!) who was engaged to take said "marchandise" down river into the "baie et Puants".  Amazing!  Is this how he met GOM?  It seems Joseph gave up his commission in the French Military to be a voyageur > GOM though it has been recorded that he was in the French Military > GOM > voyageur.  Perhaps there are some military records that would reveal a clearer picture.  New France certainly used soldiers to carry these provisions into what is now Wisconsin.  The Ho-Chunk were at Green Bay when they first met us and then we moved westward and spent time at Three Rivers, St. Joseph River, and Doty Island, but the bay near Green Bay continued to be called the  "baie et Puants" throughout the French Regime.

More to decipher!

Search for GOM has taken me to the University of Ottawa

There is little written about GOM.  Carver and Kinzie are the only first-hand accounts in the literature.  David Smith wrote about her in his book Folklore of the Winnebago Tribe.  He also wrote several articles in the Winnebago Indian News over the past decade about GOM and Ho-Chunk History.  The Winnebago Indian News (WIN) is the tribal newspaper from Winnebago, Nebraska.  He described in great detail the events that surrounded the Mesquaki  War of the 1730s' and Governor Beauharnois of New France.  Smith details GOM acting as a peace chief, while married to Joseph Descaris and a mother of two sons and a daughter, during the Meskquaki War.

My continued search of GOM acting in the capacity of a Chieftess has brought me to Canada.  I have 74 sources to examine regarding Governor Beauharnois and the Puants.  Puant is what the French called the Ho-Chunk.  It means 'stinkard'.  Not very friendly, but that is what they called us.  The marshes where we lived attributed to the name Puant.  It will be daunting to go through 74 sources as they are in French.  I can get the gist of the meaning of the letters that Beauharnois exchanged between he and his various commanders at a fort near Lake Pepin in which he describes the interaction between the various tribes.  The fort in Lake Pepin is one of the forts that Smith describes in some detail.  It would be nice if he listed his sources.  He doesn't exactly say  oral tradition, but I think that is what he is drawing from as well as the documentation in the Wisconsin Historical Society and beyond.

I also received some help from the WHS archive director again.  He gave me several links to consider, through he thinks I have exhausted the sources about GOM housed at the WHS.  Possibly.  At any rate, he said that there were two people that mined info regarding "colonial"history in Wisconsin/US.  Wow, the word colonial shook up my brain.  Here I am deep in the Fur Trade and Ho-Chunk History and I completely forgot that the time period from 1700 to 1800, is called the colonial period (by non-natives).  It was a good place to be.

A good omen today

I am currently studying Ho-Chunk history, beginning of all things to 1634 to 1900.  Too much, I know, but my thesis team members said it was time that I learned about our history.  While I considered the voluminous material and resources I felt that there was no way to do it justice.  As I finished the beginning to 1634, it dawned on me that my Choka used to talk about what it must have been like to live in the old days.  I added his thoughts to the end of the section in narrative form.  Suddenly I had an epiphany.  Why not do this for each section?  So I did.  I added the stories and comments and oral history that I have garnered at the end of each time period.  It was great!

Later in the day after spending hours on this paper having gotten through the 1700s' to 1800s', I went to pick up Amalia from school.  As I traveled down River Road Parkway I saw an eagle.  I was traveling west to east and it was traveling south to north.  I felt so invigorated at seeing this eagle and grateful that I made a breakthrough in my massive paper, that I rolled down my window and let out a ladies war hoop.  The eagle turned 180 degrees and circled so that it was over my car.  Seeing that I had its attention I yelled out again.  It hovered over me, flapping its enormous wings.  I sped along my way and didn't see it again.  I felt as if my ancestors were saying something to me.  It was as if they were spurning me on.

It was a good day.

Ho-Chunk History

A wonderful break this semester!  I get a chance to explore in depth the history of my people and GOM's people.  Oral tradition is at the forefront of my studies and my myopic view has been expanded.  My study has been hastened a bit because I have an opportunity to present "The Ho-Chunk Nation in Minnesota: A Historical Perspective" on February 28, 2012.  Let's hope I can keep all of my sources, historical facts and oral tradition facts straight.

Dakota Journalist

I am attending a Dakota History Serious of lectures which revisits the Dakota Conflict and the events surround the conflict.  The latest lecture I attended was a more spiritual one.  It was presented very thoughtfully and brought out several points that were salient to my work on GOM.  Glen Wasicuna is the Director of Dakota Studies at a tribal college in Shakopee.

The main points were, first that the Creator gave the Dakota three sacred things: the feather, pipe and language.  All were to be used as vehicles to worship Him: one feather, one pipe and the Dakota language. He went on to show how the people have changed these sacred objects.  Today people have many feathers and dance for entertainment.  He did not elaborate on the pipe, other than to say that the people have strayed from its original purpose.  One example he did give was that the pipe was like the Bible, communication from and between God.  What if people were to put the pages of the Bible on and dance?  OUCH.  Lastly, the Dakota language.  He said that he used to think it was a difficult language to learn, but now he doesn't think so.  Instead he has come to the conclusion that until one reconciles with their own history, individually and collectively, and until one is ready to become clean then the language will be easy to learn.  That is to say until the Dakota people are ready to face their brutal history, not find fault but to understand it, and then they will have a desire to learn the language and it will be easy for them to learn it.

This message really hit home.  My thesis team members want to me understand Ho-Chunk history first and then get busy and learn the language.  Maybe this is what they were telling me...

The last take home point for me was this, Glen thanked people in the audience if they ever wrote about the Dakota people. He said, "Bless you for writing about us.  Now it is our turn to write about our history.  It is our history to tell."  AMEN!!!  Haven't I been saying this all along???  I even got so bold and told this to THREE HO-CHUNK ELDERS, in a very respectful way, that we need not ever apologize for our oral tradition and history.  It is ours to tell.  If we with hold it from the young people ( I am included in this) it will be lost, forever.

Glen felt as I do, that the language, the culture, the people, the traditions will be "all right and they won't be lost" so long there are elders willing to share it and there are young people willing to learn about their history and "become clean" and live as the Creator intended.

Dr. John Peacock Lecture

I heard a lecture by Dr. John Peacock about his latest endeavor, the 80 Dakota letters written by the Dakota in Fort McClellan to a Father Riggs.  These Dakota were placed in prison just after the Dakota Conflict.  He made several salient comments that resonated with my work on GOM.  First, marriages between the Dakota and the French were considered alliances between the nations.  This is quite true between GOM and Joseph Decaris.  Second, written history will trump oral history every time.  I whole heartedly disagree with this statement.  It will if we let it. There is a magnificent cache of oral tradition that has been stored waiting to emerge.  We need to decolonized and deconstruct the methodologies that have kept us and our history suppressed because NO ONE LIKES TO HAVE THE TRUTH THROWN AT THEM.  Especially those who have been the suppressors.  Third, the history that Dr. Peacock wants to share was at first frowned upon by the Dakota elders whose help he secured.  Dr. Peacock wanted to translate the letters in modern day english, imagine.  The Dakota elders convinced him to use Dakota English.  It it a step between Dakota < Dakota English < English.  Actually, it is probably two steps away.  The gist of the message isn't lost, but I would have preferred the Dakota translation.  The elders know best and this is what I have discovered in my work.  If you secure the approval of the elders, even the Nation as I have, it is for the best.

These letters are still being translated and will hopefully be available in book form yet this year, 2012, which marks the 150th anniversary of the Dakota 38.  There is no doubt about it, our history is brutal, no matter if you are Ho-Chunk or Dakota.

The elders say that we (Dakota and the Ho-Chunk, perhaps more) were one many, many years ago.  I feel that every time I hear a lecture or an elder speak.  It brings me back to my childhood when my grandparents would sit in the evening and talk to each other.  I was planted in front of the TV, but listening to them speak..."What do you say for sugar? "  "Nee-sku" "Isn't that funny we say almost the same thing."  They would go on like this for hours; talking about their language and the old times.