Interview with Spoon Decorah, cousin of Spoon I

I read an amazing account from the cousin of Spoon I, also named Spoon.  Spoon I was GOM's grandson who signed the treaty of 1825 and Spoon was the son of Big Canoe who was GOM's son.  Without going into too much detail it was just another witness to me that the Ho Chunk were not a waring nation as a whole.  Oral history says they didn't back down from a fight wherein their women and children or hunting grounds were in danger, but they did not seek to fight as some historical accounts indicate.  Also there were several villages each with their own chief, peace and war chiefs.  Some villages numbered up to 2000 people while others were as few as 20 members of a family.  Spoon recounted many wars and he said something amazing.  He said that there were certain people that were interested in war and fought with Sacs, with Black Hawk, Red Bird and others, yet each village decided if they were going to be involved in the war or not.  Moreover, it seems that if the village/chief did not want the entire village to participate, each person (male) had the choice of fighting with the waring party.  It seems the Ho Chunk from this period prior to 1887 respected the individual choice of individuals within their villages and perhaps this translates to GOM who married outside of the tribe.

One historical writer, Kellogg seems to indicate that GOM married Sabrevior to keep peace between the Ho Chunk and the French.  The Ho Chunk and the French had established a good relationship before explorers and missionaries came among the Ho Chunk.  Other historical writers such as Radin and one other male historical writer which escapes me now seem to indicate that she married Decaris (DeCarrie or Day Korah or DeKaury or Dekauray, Day Kauray and Decorrah) to elevate her station.  Anna Funmaker, an anthropologist and a member of my thesis team indicates that she didn't need to elevate her station.  GOM was the daughter of a chief  and she could do as she liked.

So much information to sift through and it has been enlightening to say the least.

Glory of the Morning: Glory of the Morning: history

Glory of the Morning: Glory of the Morning: history: "This week and probably for a while, I will be focusing on locating and reading all of the historical accounts of GOM. I have read a fe..."

Glory of the Morning: history

This week and probably for a while, I will be focusing on locating and reading all of the historical accounts of GOM.  I have read a few accounts, but I am still doing a literature review and trying to retrieve all of the original documents about her and so I have not taken too much time to read each account.  I did have an interesting discussion with Mr. Edmonds from the Wisconsin Historical Society.  He told me that GOM is one of the most researched women and that she is often cited in works related to Wisconsin.  How interesting!  He was very kind to send me several links that will help me understand GOM's time and info on what they (the historical society) has on her.  Wasn't that nice?  It was great!  Their archives are all on line to boot!

I find the help that the Wisconsin Historical Society has given me to be very interesting because historical societies were responsible for much of the information gathering, documentation, and  historical writing about our nation in its early years.  Also, Wisconsin was said to have one of the most forward thinking and progressive historical societies of its day (Jameson, 1910) and now, they are helping me to tell the story of GOM in a new light.  Very ironic actually.

The gathering continues and I am very excited because the season that I am doing this is in the winter time and according to Ho Chunk tradition, it is the perfect time for gathering stories and recounting history.  Amazing!

Glory of the Morning: Top down, women's history or just GOM?

Glory of the Morning: Top down, women's history or just GOM?: "Finished more of Burke's writings on new perspectives in historical writing. It seems history can be told from the top down (tradition..."

Top down, women's history or just GOM?

Finished more of Burke's writings on new perspectives in historical writing.  It seems history can be told from the top down (traditional) or from the bottom up (ordinary citizen experience) and of course there is women's history.  Without any preconceived idea, my endeavor to learn about Glory of the Morning encompasses each of these areas.  History has largely been recorded from the top down, meaning that great men did something > history > recorded and we the masses (women, Native Americans or other ethnic groups) individually > our stories did not matter.  Now I (a bottom dweller of sorts and non-historian) propose to tell the story about Glory of the Morning, daughter of a principal chief or in other words, top down history of GOM's contribution to Ho Chunk history.  Yes, but GOM was a woman.  By telling her story, some historians would have you and I believe that this is marginalizing history that has been already written by non-native peoples in search of land or other resources.  Further, some feminist historians would argue that telling her story would "correct" history.  Other historians would laud my tiny efforts by deconstructing her life, the Ho Chunk Nation's history to thereby gain a broader view of GOM and her contribution to history (that has been already written).  Yikes!

I had to review my degree plan after I read Burke to reaffirm my educational objectives which are to learn what GOM's role was in Ho Chunk history:  Was GOM a leader? a Chieftess? or a Ho Chunk woman?  It is my hope that researching GOM will add another dimension to our grand and yet sad history and pave the way for further Ho Chunk women's accounts and thereby "complete" our history not "correct" what has already been written.

Glory of the Morning: historical writing

Glory of the Morning: historical writing: "Just finished a book written @1914 about the state of historical writing by J. Franklin Jameson. Why? I wanted to have an idea w..."

historical writing

Just finished a book written @1914 about the state of historical writing by J. Franklin Jameson.  Why?  I wanted to have an idea why people (non-native) wrote what they wrote when they were among the Ho Chunk Nation and its people.  Interesting to note that Wisconsin was mentioned by Jameson, et al as being among the most forward thinking historical society/government of its time.  Much of our nation's early writings were undertaken by state historical societies and so much of the information that I have about Glory of the Morning comes from the Wisconsin State Historical Society and its collections.  Jameson sees this as good and bad.  It is good in that after the Revolution we (the country) has numerous historical documents about our nation's history in great detail.   It is bad in that much of it is not written on a  "scholarly" level.  So those persons writing about the Ho Chunk Nation were there commissioned by a historical society of one sort or another or perhaps through a religious mission/society.  It will be interesting to sort out the author's and their sponsors.  Those from the Eastern Historical Societies were interested in "Indians" as a whole, as with early voyages, first contacts and so forth, but by the 1860's it seems that historians, who were the historical writers of the day soon found that these pieces of history paled in comparison by new industrial machinery and vaccines for feared diseases.

Also trying to understand why someone would put Glory of the Morning's story in the form of a play.  Something I discovered while doing my literature review.  Jameson et al, says that historical labor, of which I am now a part, has three components: 1) the gathering of and printing of original sources, 2) the reporting on masses of material or on specific topics and 3) historical writing.  One and two are evidence of craftsmanship and three, historical writing is an art.  Therefore, perhaps the play was a form of historical writing in its Jameson form - art; historical writing.