Wounded Knee Inquiry Notes

Marley Gabel Basic Information: 1. Document Title: Account of the Wounded Knee Massacre 2. Dates: 1932 3. Author: Black Elk 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Interview

Sourcing: Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? Black Elk was a witness to the battle at Little Bighorn when he was a teenager and he was the son of a warrior and medicine man. He was also a second cousin to Crazy Horse. This indicates that he is a warrior as well and he is a large player in the shaping of native history. I think that Black Elk certainly supports the perspective of the rest of the natives because he is a native himself and he says that when he saw all of the women and children that had died, he wish he had died to because he wanted to be in a happier world where there wasnt this huge conflict between the Sioux and the settlers. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I think this document was published because he wanted to give his account of what happened. It seems that if he had never made a statement about what happened in his opinion, the only historical documents we would have would be from the settlers, who obviously did not want to admit to their horrible acts. He wanted his truth to be revealed to make a mark in the history of the massacre. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? This seems to be an interview or possibly a journal entry from Black Elk. Because it appears to be an interview, I can assume that Black Elk is reporting on what he remembers after the massacre. I would trust this to be accurate because he was there and he was experiencing everything first hand. However, there may have been so much emotion tied into his experience at Wounded Knee he was unable to recount what happened, true to the exact events. Overall, however I find this to be a reliable source of accurate information.

Contextualization: Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? This was happening shortly after the battle at Little Bighorn. That was a battle where the natives slaughtered the settlers, and Black Elk was a witness to it. The ideology represented at Little Bighorn was probably one of freedom and self-defense. At the massacre of Wounded Knee, the ideology might have been freedom and native pride. Either way, the natives are fighting for their rights and asking to be able to have the land and wilderness that they used to happily roam. Close Reading: 1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. When I saw this I wish I had died too, but I was not sorry or the women and children. It was better for them to be happy in the other world, and I wanted to be there too. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This tells me that he sees and recognizes the horrible side of their deaths, but he also knows that it is better that they died because they wouldnt have to deal with the mistreatment that was sure to persist beyond this massacre. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. I feel like the emotional tone of this document is mostly one of sadness at the deaths and disgust towards the massacred women and children. Men and women and children were heaped and scattered all over the flat at the bottom of the little hill where the soldiers had their wagon-guns, and westward up the dry gulch all the way to the high ridge, the dead women and children and babies were scattered. Reading the Silences What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? One part that might have been left out of this document is who the massacre was on. It seems that it jumps from the soldiers taking the Big Foot with them and then there is a massacre, but after he describes the Big Foot as still being in captivity. Here, it is unclear to me who was killed in the massacre.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: Congressional Report on Indian Affairs 2. Dates: 1887 3. Author: Secretary of the Interior 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Report

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? The person that wrote this report was on the side of the US government where they were trying to report the triumphs and justify the treatment of the Indians. They represent the perspective that is it just to try to train the Indian out of the man by teaching them English and forcing them to lose their culture. They would support this perspective because it would allow them to put reason behind the treatment of the Indians. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I believe that this source was created to bring reason to the socialization, per say, of the Indians. In this document it explains that the barbarous dialect of the native is detriment to himself. Additionally, this document explains that the reason for training the native to speak English is to help them trade and complete business with the white man. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? This is a report by the US government, but in this case I feel like it is highly inaccurate. One part in the document says that they are essentially freeing them from their vicious and barbarous ways. The author of the document believes that by training the Indians as white men, they are fulfilling the real needs of the Indians. How can this be accurate when the Indians clearly rebelled against this and had been living peacefully with their ways before the white man? How can they assume that it is in the best interest of the Indians when they are changing their whole pattern of life?

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? Around this time, the tension was rising between the Indians and the white settlers. This was happening mostly in the western states because the native had already been driven back from the eastern border of the country. The ideology represented in this document is one of white superiority and essentially manifest destiny. Because I know who it was written by, I know that the document was probably an assignment from the government to promote the actions of the government and provide reasoning for their activities.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. The first step to be taken toward civilization, toward teaching the Indians the mischief and folly of continuing in their barbarous practices, is to teach them the English language. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This language tells me that they strongly believe that the Indian lives a life of mistake and must be trained to be saved, essentially. Additionally, this reveals the bias of the author through the simple word civilization indicating they believe the Indians are uncivilized and must be taught the English language to become so. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. In this document, I feel a tone of curtness and demandingness. This simply means I feel like there would be no way to sway the author and they are very direct with what they believe to be true. On top of that, there is a tone of I am right and you are wrong. True Americans all feel that the constitution, laws, and institutions of the United States, in their adaptation to the wants and requirements of man, are superior to those of any other country. This language, which is good enough for a white man and a black man, ought to be good enough for the red man.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? This entire document seems incredibly biased. I think it horrific that the white automatically assume that the Indians way of life was barbarous and savage. They tried to come and change something that very clearly did not need any changing. They forgot to mention that the Indians had been living this lifestyle for who knows how long and it was completely barbarous for the white settlers to try to change the way the Indians lived.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: The General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) 2. Dates: 1887 3. Author: Congress 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Government Act

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? We know that congress is multiple people, all with rebuttals and points to contribute to the writing of a document such as this. With a group of people, it is hard to make everyone happy and so regulations and processes as such must have very many rules and restrictions applied upon them. The perspective that they support is that they are doing the Indians a favor. They recognize the truths that the Indians are barbarous but they are trying to do something nice for them by ensur ing the Indians have land. Also, by doing this, they are trying to adapt the Indians into the United States ideals of property and ownership. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? This document was published to outline the rules of the land divisions for the Indians. When the Indians were fighting back because their land was being taken and there was still much undiscovered or uncivilized sections of land in the western part of the country, it became necessary for there to be rules about the divisions of the land, thus the Dawes Act was created. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? In this document, they are not recounting an event or a moment in history; it is simply a legal document. Therefore, I believe that the information is accurate based on the regulations set forth by the United States Congress. However, a question of accuracy would be whether these regulations were followed or not by the United States. I know that many treaties were broken by the United States and they freely pushed the Indians from the reservations if resources were plenty, so it is possible that the document clashes with the reality of what happened, but as for accuracy, this document cant be anything but spot on.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? At this time, again the tensions were high and there was a need, according to the United States, for the land to be controlled. To me, the ideology represented is that they are doing something kind for the Indians by giving them land and outlining how much land they would actually get and who would get it. In a way, this seems like they were making an effort to be amiable towards the Indians. The time period also tells me that they thought there was a clear need for a document like this.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. An act to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the territories over the Indians, and for other purposes. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This particular sentence best represents the perspective because it is saying that the entire act is about giving land to the Indians and extending their protections. However, at the end they tag on the for other purposes which might represent the ulterior motives of the authors of this document. This language also tells us the most about the perspective because the rest of the document is simply outlining the act and doesnt provide us with much opinion or bias. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. The emotional tone seems to be one of smugness or even a condescending tone. That where any Indian not residing upon a reservation, or for whose tribe no reservation has been provided.he or she shall be entitled...to have the same allotted to him or her, and his or her children, in quantities and manner as provided in this act for Indians residing upon reservations.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? One thing that seems particularly left out and biased about this source is the fact that the United States imposed this act on the Indians without even checking with them, according to the information provided. In this document, there is nothing written about an agreement that was made with the Indians to distribute land accordingly and this is apparent information that got left out. This indicates that the Indians were never asked to approve the act before they were under it and had to live with the act as it was written.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: Chief Red Clouds Speech 2. Dates: 3. Author: Chief Red Cloud 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Speech

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? Chief Red Cloud was a native chief who was living through the conquest of the United States government. From this passage, we know that he was a peaceful leader and was trying to become as independent as the whites. The perspective he supports is that the Indians have a right to their lands and their customs but through the treatment of the Indians by the whites, they lost themselves. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I think that, like any first person document, this was published to reveal a truth that the author themselves believes. Red Cloud writes about how at first, the Indians thought that they could become independent like the white men and were hopeful and easily cooperated with the white men but then they were mistreated and abused. Really, this document was created to show the innocence, in way, of the Indians and how they hoped things would turn out as opposed to how it actually turned out. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? This document is a primary source, which automatically makes me assume that there will be parts that are not completely accurate. Red Cloud describes the hope and then the defeat of the Indians well, but does not recognize all sides of the conflict with equal emphasis, leading me to believe that the information in this document should be compared against other accounts of the same event to prove accuracy, because as it stands it is not extremely accurate.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? One ideology that is represented in this document is the ideology that the Indians thought peace could be achieved. However, after the promises made to them were broken the lost hope and became hungry, crazed men and women watching their children die. Because this was happening around the same time as all the other documents we have looked at, we know that tensions were high. We also know that there were treaties being made to try to create a peaceful society with both Indians and white men. Based on this, something we can infer from the document is that before the horrible treatment and abuse of the natives, the natives had hope of living peacefully together in the same nation and work with the white men.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. We looked forward with hope to the time we could be as independent as the whites, and have a voice in the government. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This tells me that they were not originally violent and they were willing to try to make it work out between the whites and themselves. However, as the document progresses we see that they lose hope and faith when they are not given the necessary resources and they begin to starve. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. I feel like the overall emotional tone is one of sadness. They were lied to and then mistreated, but he doesnt get angry, he instead, writes about this with an air of great sadness. You who eat three times a day and see your children well and happy around you cannot understand what a starving Indian feels.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? In this document, the Indians are portrayed as good and kind beings. Not that they were not this as well, but he never writes about the violent out bursts that might have occurred when the Indians realized they were not getting what they had been promised. It seems inevitable that in any primary source there is a bias and some piece of information left out because the author is trying to write the piece with their people in the best light. However, in this particular account of Red Cloud, there is information about the whites treatments towards the Indians, but nothing about if or how the Indians were violent and if that somehow resulted in the abuse.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: Letter From William J small 2. Dates: 1932 3. Author: William J Small 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Letter

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? This was written by a man who fought in the massacre of Wounded Knee and made it out to recount his story. However, he also wrote this letter a very long time after the events at Wounded Knee. His perspective is very clear: it was not a massacre and whoever said that needs to be educated. He supports this side because he was there at the scene of, what he would call a battle, when history was made. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? After he finds out that accounts of the happenings at Wounded Knee are being called a massacre, he feels driven to write a letter. He feels that the historians writing about that happened need to understand that it was certainly not a massacre. He was angry that people were calling it such and so he wrote a letter to try to explain the events as a soldier that was there. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? A document that is a letter often, to me, is not always completely accurate because it is a primary source. Often times, primary sources are loaded with emotional ties that can blur the writers judgment and memory of the actual facts. Additionally, this this specific document, it was written many years after the actual battle and as a war hero William might have remembered their actions as brave and noble instead of a mindless slaughter. Though all of this makes the document less accurate, I still am curious about some of the things he wrote about and would trust portions of his account.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? During the time this was written, the depression had just started and many peoples spirits were down. Additionally, this was written after the events at Wounded-Knee, almost as a memoir of the battle. The ideology that seems to be represented is one of white superiority, because the soldiers believed what they were doing was right. Based on when this was written, we can infer that it might have been written to lift the spritits of the American people. When people are down, a win can often be a confidence boost and promote a sense of accomplishment in the citizens, even though they were so down.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. When people say we were drunk and boozing, tell them they are crazy. I would love to meet the men who wrote Massacre. I would tell them something well to the fight. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. Through this particular quote, we see that the historians or writers at the time believed that the events at Wounded-Knee could be classified as a massacre. The man who was actually there believes that the public thinks the soldiers were drunk and blantantly killed everyone, but he is trying to give them some piece of his truth of what actually happened at Wounded Knee. This represents his bias as that of it being a fair battle, not a massacre, because he says he would like to tell them something of the fight meaning that what they know and assume is wrong. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. The emotional tone is certainly emanating anger and frustration at the lack of understanding of the actual events at Wounded-Knee. I am getting along in years now and, seeing the piece of Massacre it made me angry to think that anyone woul d say such things, when they had no proof only hearsay. it was such a battle it was and at times, I can see it all over.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? This document is wildly biased because it claims that the events at Wounded-Knee were happening fairly on both sides when other accounts claim that the Indians were slaughtered and left dead everywhere. Also, compared to Black Elks account of the story, this seems to differ greatly because William claims that the Big Foot started the fighting and in Black Elks, he doesnt ever mention how the fighting was really initiated. One odd thing that stuck out to me in this account was the mention of a mission. None of the other sources thus far had mentioned a mission, which makes me inclined to believe this was not actually an accurate part of the story.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: Report on Wounded-Knee Massacre and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage 2. Dates: 1891 3. Author: President Benjamin Harrison 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Report

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? President Benjamin Harrison is the author of this report, and as the president of the United States, we know that whatever he writes aims to satisfy the people. He supports the opinion that the Indians were complaining about little things, as a naturally violent tribe and the US government dealt with the situation with as little death as possible. This also means he doesnt believe it was a massacre of Sioux. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? It is the duty of the president of the United States to inform the citizens of what is happening within their countries that affects the citizens in some way or another. This document was published because the president was writing a report based on the events, as required of him by his job. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? Though this is a government document, I feel like the accuracy of this particular document is very limited. For one thing, the document says that they tried to protect the settlers from the Indians with as little death as possible. However, we know that the truth is that there was tons of death. Overall, I do not find this source accurate, despite the fact that it is an official government document.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? This was a report written a year after the events at Wounded-Knee, after the Indians had given up resistance. At this point, the Indians were already on the reservations and they were controlled by the US government. In this report, the ideology is that the US government took the necessary actions to protect the white settlers. At this time and with this information, this document was likely to be received welcomingly because it explained that they actions taken were self-defense to protect the people of the United States.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. He is entitled to the credit of having given thorough protection to the settlers and of bringing the hostiles into subjectio n with the least possible loss of life. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This is essentially a quote that is claiming that the necessary actions were taken to protect the white settlers and the US government and soldiers aimed for as little death as possible, disproving the events as a massacre. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. Similar to many of the documents, I feel like this particular document is representing a tone of innocence and right for the actions taken against the Indians. (speaking about the Indians) the families that have found renewed hope and courage in the ownership of a home and the assurance of a comfortable subsistence under free and healthful conditions. It is also gratifying to be able to feel, as we may, that his work has proceeded along the lines of justice towards the Indian, and that he may now, if he will, secure himself the good influences of a settled habitat, the fruits of industry, and the security of citizenship.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? There is one particular part of this document that seems very odd and out of place. This is where he is writing about how the Indians preached of the coming of an Indian messiah who was to give them power to destroy the enemies. The natives that recounted this same event never spoke of any Indian messiah that was supposed to help them in battle. Certainly, it would seem, the Indians prayed to their gods as they are a monotheistic culture, but they were not expecting a messiah to destroy their enemies. This really just seems like a tactic that the author was using to try to convince the audience that the Sioux were crazy and that they didnt know the difference between a small issue that they would complain about as opposed to a complaint about the abuse towards the Indians.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: The Ghost Dance War 2. Dates: 3. Author: Charles Eastman Ohiyesa 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Personal account

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 4. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? This was written by a Sioux man who shifted his perspective and believed in the Christian religion and the US Government. He became a doctor and was consulted by the US government officials, though he wasnt often listened to. His perspective is hard to decipher but it seems to me that he is in support of the collaboration between the Indians and the whites. He believes in the Christian religion and wants the Ghost Dancers to become assimilated into the culture as well. 5. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I believe this document was created to reveal a new perspective. The previous accounts had been clearly one side or the other but here we have an account of an Indian who was trying to live peaceful with the white men and he was even working as a doctor for them. Because he has such a unique story, it is necessary for his story be written to allow historians another piece of the puzzle. 6. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? This document is a personal account of what happened in the eyes of one man who was alive at the time. I feel inclined to believe that this is a mostly accurate account, because he was such and in between sort of player in the whole story. Also, the way he tells the story gives information that matches with the account of William J Small, which makes both of their stories more accurate due to the cross referencing.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? This story represents something that was happening that none of the other documents talk about; the Indians that did assimilate. It seems that there were Indians that did decide to adopt the Christian religion and become part of the United States government. They were loyal to the government and tried to be the bridge between the Indians and the white men. The ideology represented seems to be that there was hope for cooperation between the two races. Additionally, we know that he must have faced loyalty conflicts with his family and friends if some of the Indians were so opposed to the whites but he was willing to attempt to try to become part of the culture.

Close Reading:
4. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. There is only one thing for us to do and be just to both sides. We must use every means for a peaceful settlement of this difficulty. Let us be patient; let us continue to reason with the wilder element, even though some hotheads may threaten our lives. If the worst happens, however, it is our solemn duty to serve the United States government. 5. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This language tells us that he believed in being patient and waiting for a peaceful solution. He certainly did not want the conflict to deteriorate into a battle or fighting between the two parties. However, he knew that if it did, in order to protect himself and the people he cared about, he had to stay loyal to the US government because he truly believed in what they were doing and in their ability to negotiate. 6. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. The emotional tone of this piece seems to be one of almost annoyance at the wilder element of Indians that insisted in ghost dancing and maintaining strict resistance toward the white culture. In a short speech, he asked my advice in the difficult situation that confronted them between the ghost dancers, men of their own blood, and the government to which they had pledged their loyalty.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? This seems like a fairly accurate source because it matches the odd account of William J Small, which I had previously doubted. However, it seems that there are parts where it is unclear to the reader who was getting attacked by who. It says that the Big Foot tribe was headed towards the settlement that Charles was part of, but he then says that the Calvary went to confront the Indians. The part that is missing here is the motives of the Big Foot tribe. If we believe Black Elks account, then we can assume that the Big Foot Indians were just trying to get help for their chief.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: Editorials on the Sioux Nation (Sitting Bull and Wounded-Knee editorials) 2. Dates: December 20, 1890 & January 3, 1891 3. Author: L. Frank Baum 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Newspaper Editorials

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? The author, as we know was a well-known white man at the time of all of these events. Based on the common ideology of the time, he would have had beliefs and ideas that were widely accepted by the rest of the community. The perspective he supports is clearly that there was no massacre, and that the Indians should be exterminated. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I think that these editorials were published because they reflected the common belief of the citizens. Many of them believed that they would be better off without the Indians. As a local newspaper, the job of the newspaper is supposed to report on things that are relevant and timely for the people so these editorials were published. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? These documents are editorials written in a newspaper of the time. I feel like editorials often hold some piece of truth, but are more likely to be filled with opinion. As an editorial, this source is inevitably biased because of the nature of the style or writing. For this particular document, I am inclined to believe that the information is heavily opinion and cannot be trusted as anything more than insight to the common perspective of the American people at the time.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? This was written in a town close to where the massacre took place, so the events at Wounded-Knee were still considered local news. These were written right after Wounded-Knee. The ideology that is represented is that the white man is not responsible for any massacre because it was not an all-out slaughter. Also, the ideology represents the opinion that the Indians need to be exterminated and completely killed to make way for the white settlers, masters of the American continent. He represented the ideology that things would be better without the Indians alive.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. In this document, Baums perspective seems very clear. This particular sentence sums up what he is trying to say in just a couple words. Essentially, in order for the new era of white settlers and the American government to succeed, the Indians all need to be killed. Baum says that they have wronged the Indians so many times it would be better for them to die off now so their memory can be preserved as heroic and not despicable. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. I feel like the general tone of this is one of superiority and disgust. On top of that, the author holds a sense of rightness to his writing. Their glory has fled, their spirit broke , their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? Editorials are designed to be biased in nature; that much we can assume. Clearly, his bias is that the white men are doing what is right by trying to exterminate the Indians. However, it seems odd to me in the second editorial he is talking down the commander that was in charge instead of accusing the Indians of attacking. In fact, there is no mention of the Indians attacking the white men and lashing out violently. This seems odd to me that he would accuse General Miles of messing up instead of blaming it on the Indians, because the common opinion, which he appears to represent, would agree that the Indians were the initiator of violence and the white settlers and soldiers were just trying to protect themselves against the savages.

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: Lakota Accounts of the Massacre at Wounded Knee 2. Dates: February 11, 1891 3. Author: Commissioner of Indian Affairs 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Report

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? We know that the author of this piece was the commsioner of indian affairs. He is reporting on personal accounts of several men that were involved with the Wounded Knee Massacre. We also know that he commissioner was likely to write down the Indians stories accurately because it was his job to facilitate and be true to their accounts. The perspective of this document seems to be that the real shame was in killing the women and children of the Big Foot tribe. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I think that this document was pubished, like all reports, to record the events of what happened. This is an especially interesting document because it has so many people that share first person accounts, it quickly becomes very useful for historians to gather evidence on what happened at the battle of Wounded-Knee. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? I find this document to be very accurate. Though it is a compilation of first person experiences, these experiences match with each other and the report of Black Elk which makes me believe that it is reliable information that we can trust.

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? This was written shortly after the Wounded-Knee massacre. This document is a report of the first person experiences of a couple different Indians that readily obeyed the United States government and believed that peace could be reached between the Indians and the white men. The ideology represented is that it is possible to get the best of both worlds. These men that recounted their stories for the report were part of the agencies where there seemed to be little to no trouble and they are recalling the difficulty of having to go and retrieve the panicked Indians from the Bad Lands, serving as peace keepers.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document.

Of course this affair brought a great deal of distress upon all the people, but especially upon the minds of those who stood loyal to the government and who did all that they were able to in the matter of bringing about peace. They especially have suffered much distress and are very much hurt at heart. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. This shows one of the perspectives that is represented in these documents; the Indians that were loyal to the government had to face the difficulty of also trying to keep peace and stay loyal to their brothers and family and friends. The other perspective that is portrayed in this document is that the Calvary that sent out soldiers to attack the Big Foot tribe initiated the fighting. These accounts report that one Indian fired one shot and then the soldiers immediately started firing at all of the men, women and children. They were already handing over their weapons and were defenseless, so they ran. Through this document, there are a couple perspectives represented. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. In this document, I feel like the emotional tone is really distant sadness. It seems like these men are reflecting upon the events and they are sad that their kind was killed, even though there was potential for there to be common peace among the two races. Of course we all feel very sad about this affair. I stood very loyal to the government all through those troublesome days, and believing so much in the government and being loyal to it, my disappointment was very strong and I have come to Washington with a very great blame on my heart.

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased?

In this account, there seems to be faint bias and, like the other documents previously analyzed, there seems to be something left out as well. While reading through the document, I noticed that there is mention of a movement that many of the Indian men in the agency (Pine Ridge) were inclined to join, but the government warned them against this. Unless I am reading the document hastily and missing key components, I believe that the movement is never specified. I can infer that this movement would be against the United States government, but then there are parts of the story that dont make sense if that is what the movement was all about. Why did this movement matter? What was it all about?

Basic Information:
1. Document Title: General Nelson A. Miles on the Sioux Outbreak of 1890 2. Dates: 1891, December 7th, 1890, December 19th, 1890 3. Author: General Miles 4. Type of Document (interview, newspaper article, private conversation, etc.): Statement, Reports, Field Dispatches

Sourcing:
Look carefully at the source of this document, and write notes in the space below about how each of the following pieces of information help you to analyze this document: 1. Author/Speaker: What do you know about this person? What perspective do they seem likely to support, and why? We know that this author was General Miles and he was assigned to work with the Indians. We also know that he was employed by the US government, but based on his writings felt like the US government was to blame for the out breaks in the Indians that they were frequently seeing. His perspective is that the US government caused mistrust in the Indians and that established hostility, creating tensions that eventually lead to the massacre of Wounded-Knee. 2. Purpose: Why do you think this document created/published? I believe that this document was published to provide a slightly different perspective than all of the other documents. What I mean by this is that the majority of white men writing about this event seem to agree that the natives are savage and they whites are just acting out in self-defense. However, Miles provides the unique perspective that the Indians were only hostile because they were lied to, making it a necessary document for piecing together the true culprits of the Wounded-Knee massacre. 3. Type of Document: How does the type of document and its purpose affect how much you trust the information to be accurate? I trust this document because it is a statement from a general, but it is opposing his government. I believe that statements and reports are generally fairly accurate, but this one appears to be very accurate because it makes the bold accusation against the US government, and why would the general report something against his employer unless it was accurate information?

Contextualization:
Give the context for the document. Where? When? What was going on at the time? What ideology is represented? What does the context tell you about the document? At the time, the tensions were rising and there was increasing hostility towards the US government from the Indians. He represents the ideology that the Indians were working towards a peaceful future and collaboration between the races, but were unable to fulfill their end of the treaty because the United States government was not upholding their end of the treaty. This ideology goes hand in hand with the belief that the Indians were not the initiators of the battle at WoundedKnee, they were just acting upon their growing hostilities toward the United States government.

Close Reading:
1. Language and Perspective: Quote a piece of language in the space below that you think is crucial to figuring out the perspective of this document. Unless the officers of the army can give some positive assurance that the government intends to act in good faith with these people, the loyal element will be diminished and the hostile element increased. 2. Language and Perspective: Discuss what that language tells you about the perspective of the author and the bias of the document. Here it is clear that his perspective is that if the government would just follow through with the treaties and agreements, then the Indians would maintain loyalty. If it is the goal of the US government to bring the Indians into the white culture, they have to give the Indians the means to do it instead of breaking their promises and accusing the Indians of resisting. 3. Emotional Tone/Mood: What is the emotional tone/mood of this document? Quote a sentence that shows this emotional tone/mood. The tone of this is urgency and there is an emotional mood of fear for what happens if the government doesnt act upon the treaties like they promised they would. Congress has been in session several weeks and could in a single hour confirm the treaties and appropriate the necessary funds for their fulfillment, which their commissioners and the highest officials of the government have guaranteed to these people

Reading the Silences

What is missing or left out that seems odd or biased? I feel like this entire document is actually fairly accurate and records the history and the causes of the massacre at Wounded-Knee well. However, it is odd to me that the general is reporting and accusing the government he works for, for being lying and cheating people. This seems oddly out of place for a generals report and statement, but I think that it just means that there were Indians on the side of the white men and white men on the side of the Indians.