back to 6 Nations | many worlds | rat haus | Index | Search | tree

Article: 1058 of sgi.talk.ratical
From: (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Subject: Basic Call to Consciousness, conclusion [3/3]
Summary: The Hau de no sau nee Address to the Western World, Geneva, Autumn 1977
Keywords: OngweHonwekah, Domestic Mode of Production, Beaver Wars, dispossession
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 13:46:39 GMT
Lines: 851

 

The 145 lines of excerpts after this lead-in are included as a summary for those who might actually read that much, but not the complete 614 lines of this final segment.

The concept of property--i.e. ownership--appears to be a fundamental issue in all of this. Webster's first and partial second definition of "property" (reference is http://smac.ucsd.edu/cgi-bin/http_webster?property) is,

1a:   a quality or trait belonging and esp. peculiar to an individual or thing . . .   2a:   something owned or possessed; specif:   a piece of real estate 3:   The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing:   ownership

"peculiar to an individual" is a rather telling indicator: as mentioned previously, there appears to be a much less developed sense-of-self evident when one reads about people in "primitive" or non-industrialized/civilized human societies. So much of the me-first basis of our society seems founded upon the [exclusive] "right" of possession. Is such a "clinging" approach to existence -- inwardly (holding onto "the past," memory of joy, fear, dread, excitement, sadness, despair, etc.) as well as outwardly -- preventing a more direct, dynamic and creative relationship to and relatedness with life from manifesting here? Isn't creativity needed now more than ever before? A culture based on concepts like property and ownership apparently can become trapped in an ever-widening spiral of self-interest manifesting as ambition, comparison, competitiveness, winners-AND-losers, achievement, greed, fear, jealousy, envy, ruthlessness, success. . . . It would appear such a violent "way of life" paradigm eventually "erases" understanding of the fact of oneness with all of creation and the sacred trust and fact of being the current "caretakers" of a place like Mother Earth.

I've being thinking [somewhat hypothetically] of somehow "losing" all my physical possessions. In some indelible ways, "the me" I see myself as would be greatly diminished with the absence of the things I've accumulated around me. There would also be a dissipation of the fear which ALWAYS accompanies such acquisitions ("what if I `lose' this? -- what if it were to get broken or stolen?"). And then there are the "inner posessions/accumulations": the memory of the anguish of feeling abandoned and betrayed by my parents, the memory of rejection by someone I initially had such ambitious high hopes for of achieving a rather unique musical endeavor with, the incessant desire to accomplish and the inevitable disappointment because I never can "do it all" or "do it enough," the self-[re]programming mantra of "he's a jerk" which is automatically invoked when I see someone who, yesterday, behaved in a manner I interpreted as "being cold" -- towards me -- that memory of whatever thing happened before injects itself into the present so seamlessly, I am forever giving it a "new lease on life." How "easy" it is for "the me" to be "hurt" -- how automatically "I" rush in to "my" rescue and project onto "the other" -- the "not me" -- some form of blame for what just happened. When the fact is, I am the source of "me" being hurt -- I am the source of the interpretation of whatever-it-was that just happened.

For centuries, it has been practically impossible for people raised in industrialized culture to understand that "the me" is simply not important to "primitive" peoples in the way we have made it be so.

"She tells, for example, of accompanying a traditional "thanka" painter on a trip to Kashmir. Everywhere the two vistors went, people ridiculed the man, poking fun at his "backward" dress and mimicking his language. But much to Norberg-Hodge's amazement, he remained completely unaffected by the abuse and never lost his cheerful, smiling demeanor. When she asked him why he didn't get angry, he replied, in a characteristic Ladakhi fashion, "Chi choen?" ("What's the point?") -- meaning, why should I allow my precious peace of mind to be disrupted by such inconsequential circumstances?"

"Learning From Ladakh," Yoga Journal, May/June, 1992, p. 64.

Your response to the above may well be, "Oh, but the writer is interpreting `What's the point' to mean what he wants it to mean." I submit such a response is further evidence of how INGRAINED the importance of "the me" is in anyone raised under the influence of, and conditioned by, the industrial mind. There is SUCH A DEEP abiding self-interest occuring because of the way thought works in us; thought being, the response of memory.

"What [Krishnamurti] was seriously proposing is that all this disorder, which is the root cause of such widespread sorrow and misery, and which prevents human beings from properly working together, has its root in the fact that we are ignorant of the general nature of our own processes of thought. Or to put it differently it may be said that we do not see what is actually happening, when we are engaged in the activity of thinking."

--ratitor

 

Our traditions were such that we were careful not to allow our populations to rise in numbers that would overtax the other forms of life. We practiced strict forms of conservation. Our culture is based on a principle that directs us to constantly think about the welfare of seven generations into the future. Our belief in this principle acts as a restraint to the development of practices which would cause suffering in the future. . . .

The Hau de no sau nee have no concept of private property. This concept would be a contradiction to a people who believe that the Earth belongs to the Creator. Property is an idea by which people can be excluded from having access to lands, or other means of producing a livelihood. That idea would destroy our culture, which requires that every individual live in service to the Spiritual Ways and the People. That idea (property) would produce slavery. The acceptance of the idea of property would produce leaders whose functions would favor excluding people from access to property, and they would cease to perform their functions as leaders of our societies and distributors of goods.

Before the colonists came, we had no consciousness about a concept of commodities. Everything, even the things we make, belong to the Creators of Life and are to be returned ceremonially, and in reality, to the owners. Our people live a simple life, one unencumbered by the need of endless material commodities. The fact that their needs are few means that all the peoples' needs are easily met. It is also true that our means of distribution is an eminently fair process, one in which all of the people share in all the material wealth all of the time.

Our Domestic Mode of Production has a number of definitions which are culturally specific. Our peoples' economy requires a community of people and is not intended to define an economy based on the self-sufficient nuclear family. Some modern economists estimate that in most parts of the world, the isolated nuclear family cannot produce enough to survive in a Domestic Mode of Production. In any case, that particular mode of subsistence, by our cultural definition, is not an economy at all.

Ours was a wealthy society. No one suffered from want. All had the right to food, clothing, and shelter. All shared in the bounty of the spiritual ceremonies and the Natural World. No one stood in any material relationship of power over anyone else. No one could deny anyone access to the things they needed. . . .

The European penetration affected every facet of the Native Way of Life from the very moment of contact. The natural economies, cultures, politics, and military affairs became totally altered. Nations learned that to be without firearms meant physical annihilation. To be without access to beaver pelts mean no means to buy firearms. . . .

European churches, especially in colonial practice, take on their feudal roles as economic institutions. Among natural world people, they are the most dangerous agents of destruction. They invariably seek to destroy the spiritual/economic bonds of the people to the forests, land and animals. They spread both ideologies and technologies which make people slaves to the extractive system which defines colonialism. . . .

The Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war [of 1812], made no provision, at least in writing, for the Native nations, which the British Crown had solemnly promised to protect. Thus the representatives of the People of the Longhouse held an international treaty meeting with the new federation called the United States of America in September of 1784. The U.S. demanded huge cessions of territory, especially from the Senecas. The warriors who had been delegated to the meeting eventually signed the treaty. However, they had not been authorized to commit the Hau de no sau nee without consulting them. For a time, the terms of the treaty were not known, as the U.S. would not provide the Hau de no sau nee with a copy of the document. As many Native people knew, to their regrets, signing a treaty and the ratification of a treaty are two separate acts, each necessary before a treaty becomes valid. Although the U.S. Congress ratified the treaty, the legislative council of the Hau de no sau nee met at Buffalo Creek and renounced the agreement.

Somehow the United States takes the position that the Hau de no sau nee ceased to exist by the year 1784, although the Longhouse has continued to this day. There is ample evidence that all the nations continued to participate in the matters of the Great Council, the legislative body of the Confederacy. None of the nations of the league has ever declared themselves separate from the Confederation. The Oneidas, whose reputed allegiance to the United States was based on the existence of Oneida mercenaries, continued to send their delegates to the council, and the Tuscarora remain firmly attached to the League. The Onondagas, Senecas, Cayugas and Mohawks continue to hold their positions within the League. Although the Hau de no sau nee have been severely disrupted by the Westward expansion of the United States, the subsequent surrounding of their lands, and the attempts to devour its people, the Six Nations Confederacy continues to function. Indeed, today its strength continues to be increasing.

By pretending that the Hau de no sau nee government no longer exists, both the U.S. and Britain illegally took Hau de no sau nee territories by simply saying the territories belong to them. To this day, Canada, the former colony of England, has never made a treaty for the lands in the St. Lawrence River Valley. But the truth continues to remain and plague officials yet today. The Hau de no sau nee territories are not and have never been part of the U.S. or Canada. The citizens of the Hau de no sau nee are a separate people, distinct from either Canada or the United States. Because of this, the Hau de no sau nee refuses to recognize a border drawn by a foreign people through our lands.

The policy of the dispossession of North American Native peoples, first by the European kingdoms, and later by the settler regimes, began with the first contact. Dispossession took a number of approaches: the so-called "just warfare" was a strategy by which Native nations were deemed to have offended the Crown and their elimination by fire and sword was justified. That was followed by the Treaty Period in which Native nations were "induced" to sell their lands and move westward. The Treaty Period was in full swing at the beginning of the 19th Century. By 1815, the governor of New York was agitating for the removal of all Native people from the state for "their own good." . . .

Like the Termination Policy a century later, the Removal Policy was eventually abandoned due in part to the bad press received during the Cherokee Removal in 1832. During the process of the Cherokee removal, thousands of Cherokee men, women, children and elders were subjected to conditions which caused them to die of exposure, starvation and neglect.

In 1871, the U.S. Congress passed an Act which included a clause that treaties would no longer be made with "Indian Nations." It was at this time that official United States policy toward Native people began to shift to a new strategy. Reports to Congress began to urge that the Native people be assimilated into U.S. society as quickly as possible. . .

The Hau de no sau nee has, over a period of 375 years, met every definition of an oppressed nation. It has been subjected to raids of extermination from France, England, and the United States. Its people have been driven from their lands, impoverished, and persecuted for their Hau de no sau nee customs. It has been the victim of fraudulent dealings from three European governments which have openly expressed the goal of extermination of the Hau de no sau nee. Our children have been taught to despise their ancestors, their culture, their religion, and their traditional ceremony. Recently, it has been a government-sponsored fad to have bi-lingual/bi-cultural programs in the schools. These programs are not a sincere effort to revitalize the Hau de no sau nee, but exist as an integrationists' ploy to imply "acceptance" from the dominating culture.

Revisionist United States and British historians have cloaked the past in a veil of lies. The national and local governments of the Hau de no sau nee have been suppressed and usurped by the colonial authorities, and their neo-colonial Indian helpers, to carry out policies of repression in the name of "democracy." Generation after generation has seen the Hau de no sau nee land base, and therefore its economic base, shrink under the expansionist policies of the United States, Great Britain, and Canada.

The world is told by colonial government propaganda machines that the Hau de no sau nee are simply "victims of civilization and progress." The truth is that they are the victims of a conscious and persistent effort of destruction directed at them by the European governments and their heirs in North America. The Hau de no sau nee is not suffering a terminal illness of natural causes -- it is being deliberately strangled to death by those who would benefit from its death.

Although treaties may often have been bad deals for the Native nations, the United States and Canada chose not to honor those which exist because to do so would require the return of much of the economic base and sovereignty to the Hau de no sau nee. The treaties contain the potential for independent survival of the Native people. The dishonoring of treaties is essential to the goal of the U.S. and Canadian vested interests which are organized to remove any and all obstacles to their exploitation of the Earth and her peoples.

 

POLICIES OF OPPRESSION
IN THE NAME OF
"DEMOCRACY"

ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE HAU DE NO SAU NEE


The Hau de no sau nee, People of the Longhouse, who are known to many Europeans as the Six nations Iroquois, have inhabited their territories since time immemorial. During the time prior to the coming of the Europeans, it is said that ours were a happy and prosperous people. Our lands provided abundantly for our needs. Our people lived long, healthy, and productive lives. Before the Europeans came, we were an affluent people, rich in the gifts of our country. We were a strong people in both our minds and bodies. Throughout most of that time, we lived in peace.

Prior to the arrival of the colonists, we were a people who lived by hunting and gathering, and practiced a form of agriculture which was not labor intensive. The economy of the people was an extremely healthful Way of Life, and our peoples were very healthy -- among the finest athletes in the world. There were some, in those times, who lived to be 120 years and more, and our runners were unexcelled for speed and endurance.

Among our people we refer to our culture as "OngweHonwekah." This refers to a Way of Life that is peculiar to the Hau de no sau nee. It is virtually impossible for us to recount, specifically, the history of "Hau de no sau nee economics." As will become evident, our economy, that way in which our people manage their resources, and the relationship of that management to the total organization of our society, are processes completely bound together. The distribution of goods, in our traditional society, was accomplished through institutions which are not readily identified as economic institutions by other societies. The Hau de no sau nee do not have specific economic institutions. Rather, what European people identify as institutions of one classification or another serve many different purposes among the Hau de no sau nee.

We were a people of a great forest. That forest was a source of great wealth. It was a place in which was to be found huge hardwoods and an almost unimaginable abundance and variety of nuts, berries, roots, and herbs. In addition to these, the rivers teemed with fish and the forest and its meadows abounded with game. It was, in fact, a kind of Utopia, a place where no one went hungry, a place where the people were happy and healthy.

Our traditions were such that we were careful not to allow our populations to rise in numbers that would overtax the other forms of life. We practiced strict forms of conservation. Our culture is based on a principle that directs us to constantly think about the welfare of seven generations into the future. Our belief in this principle acts as a restraint to the development of practices which would cause suffering in the future. To this end, our people took only as many animals as were needed to meet our needs. Not until the arrival of the colonists did the wholesale slaughter of animals occur.

We feel that many people will be confused when we say that ours is a Way of Life, that our economy cannot be separated from the many aspects of our culture. Our economy is unlike that of Western peoples. We believe that all things in the world were created by what the English language forces us to call "Spiritual Beings," including one that we call the Great Creator. All things in this world belong to the Creator and the spirits of the world. We also believe that we are required to honor these beings, in respect of the gift of Life.

In accordance with our ways, we are required to hold many kinds of feasts and ceremonies which can best be described as "give-aways." It is said that among our people, our leaders, those whom the Anglo people insist on calling "chiefs," are the poorest of us. By the laws of our culture, our leaders are both political and spiritual leaders. They are leaders of many ceremonies which require the distribution of great wealth. As spiritual/political leaders, they provide a kind of economic conduit. To become a political leader, a person is required to be a spiritual leader, and to become a spiritual leader a person must be extraordinarily generous in terms of material goods.

Our leaders, in fact, are leaders of categories of large extended families. Those large extended families function as economic units in a Way of Life which has as its base the Domestic Mode of Production. Before the colonists came, we had our own means of production and distribution adequate to meet all the peoples' needs. We would have been unable to exist as nations were it not so.

Our basic economic unit is the family. The means of distribution, aside from simple trade, consists of a kind of spiritual tradition manifested in the functions of the religious/civic leaders in a highly complex religious, governmental, and social structure.

The Hau de no sau nee have no concept of private property. This concept would be a contradiction to a people who believe that the Earth belongs to the Creator. Property is an idea by which people can be excluded from having access to lands, or other means of producing a livelihood. That idea would destroy our culture, which requires that every individual live in service to the Spiritual Ways and the People. That idea (property) would produce slavery. The acceptance of the idea of property would produce leaders whose functions would favor excluding people from access to property, and they would cease to perform their functions as leaders of our societies and distributors of goods.

Before the colonists came, we had no consciousness about a concept of commodities. Everything, even the things we make, belong to the Creators of Life and are to be returned ceremonially, and in reality, to the owners. Our people live a simple life, one unencumbered by the need of endless material commodities. The fact that their needs are few means that all the peoples' needs are easily met. It is also true that our means of distribution is an eminently fair process, one in which all of the people share in all the material wealth all of the time.

Our Domestic Mode of Production has a number of definitions which are culturally specific. Our peoples' economy requires a community of people and is not intended to define an economy based on the self-sufficient nuclear family. Some modern economists estimate that in most parts of the world, the isolated nuclear family cannot produce enough to survive in a Domestic Mode of Production. In any case, that particular mode of subsistence, by our cultural definition, is not an economy at all.

Ours was a wealthy society. No one suffered from want. All had the right to food, clothing, and shelter. All shared in the bounty of the spiritual ceremonies and the Natural World. No one stood in any material relationship of power over anyone else. No one could deny anyone access to the things they needed. All in all, before the colonists came, ours was a beautiful and rewarding Way of Life.

The colonists arrived with many institutions and strategies designed to destroy the Way of Life of the People of the Longhouse. In 1609, Samuel deChamplain led a French military expedition that attacked a party of Mohawk people on the lake now named "Lake Champlain." Champlain arrived in search of wealth and was specifically interested in generating some kind of trade in beaver pelts with the Algonquin people of the area. He demonstrated his firearms to them, letting them see, for the first time, the power of guns.

Champlain, accompanied by his newly-found business partners, marched into the center of Mohawk territory. This war party encountered a party of about 200 Mohawks. The first volley of gunfire killed three men, and the second created such confusion that the Mohawks retreated, leaving twelve men who were taken captive.

The period of warfare which followed this incident has come to be known as the "Beaver Wars." The introduction of trade in beaver pelts inevitably triggered a long series of colonial wars. It represented the escalation of disputes among neighbors into a full-scale struggle for survival in the forests of the Native people of North America.

The European penetration affected every facet of the Native Way of Life from the very moment of contact. The natural economies, cultures, politics, and military affairs became totally altered. Nations learned that to be without firearms meant physical annihilation. To be without access to beaver pelts mean no means to buy firearms.

The trade in beaver pelts, and the now necessary weaponry, introduced factors never before encountered by the Native people. Trade meant that long routes over which goods were to be transported had to be secured. The only way that was possible was for the entire area to be in friendly hands. Any potential disruptor of the trade routes must either be pacified or eliminated.

With the introduction of firearms, war became a deadly business. It was made more deadly because the European strategy of economic penetration was to stimulate warfare among the Native nations over which would have the goods for trade. Out of necessity, to protect themselves from annihilation, the People of the Longhouse entered the beaver trade. The pelts were used to buy more firearms and goods that made it possible for more men to trap more beaver more efficiently. The marketplaces of France, Holland, and England were eager for the "New World" merchandise.

Shortly after the encounter on Lake Champlain, the Hau de no sau nee began trading with Holland, which had established posts along the Hudson River. A large part of the trade involved firearms. French historians recount that the People of the Longhouse were very skillful at the strategies of battle, and within a short time, the Algonquin people were defeated. Their defeat was aided by the fact that the French had not taken seriously their pledges of aid to the Algonquin.

So intense became the need for European goods, especially firearms, that by 1640 the beaver were becoming scarce in the Hau de no sau nee territories. Pressure from the newly created European frontiers was steadily increasing. Warfare was also common between the various colonizers. The Hau de no sau nee were well aware of what was occurring to the East. The Dutch, shortly after their arrival, began a series of genocidal wars that ended in the utter annihilation of the Native peoples of the Lower Hudson River Valley. In New England, the Pequot nation was nearly obliterated by the Puritan and English colonists there.

Knowledge of these massacres greatly influenced Hau de no sau nee defense policy. To the East were the Dutch and English, whose presence was necessary as a source of firearms. Yet, they represented a constant potential of movement of their frontiers westward into the Longhouse. To the North was the colony of France, which was supplying arms to the Western Native nations. France also threatened to gain a monopoly over the beaver trade which was increasingly centered to the north and west of Lakes Erie and Ontario.

France made repeated attempts to send missionaries, especially Jesuits, among the nations of the Hau de no sau nee. These missions were the major tool of propaganda for the European nations. Missionaries then, as today, are expected to carry more than the message of Christianity. They serve as lay ambassadors of their culture, splitting off individuals from families, families from villages, villages from nations, one by one. Some priests even served as the leaders of troops going into battle.

The missionaries made persistent attacks on the economic structures of the People of the Longhouse. They specifically attacked the spiritual ceremonies as "pagan," and thereby sought to end the practice of give-aways and public feasts. In addition, they sought to break the power of the clans by causing division which would split the people into nuclear households.

European churches, especially in colonial practice, take on their feudal roles as economic institutions. Among natural world people, they are the most dangerous agents of destruction. They invariably seek to destroy the spiritual/economic bonds of the people to the forests, land and animals. They spread both ideologies and technologies which make people slaves to the extractive system which defines colonialism.

In 1704, the first Anglican missionaries were sent, by England, to the Mohawks living along the Mohawk River. In 1710, a delegation of Mohawk chiefs received an invitation to visit England. They returned bearing four bibles, a prayer book and a communion plate for the Anglican chapel, gifts from Queen Anne. But the missionaries also brought behind them a long, long tail. To house themselves they needed a mission, to protect the mission they needed a fort, and to propagate the faith, they needed a school. Missionaries spread more than the word of God. The British Empire was fast entering the Hau de no sau nee territories, and there was more to come.

The warlike European kingdoms were constantly fighting among themselves. There were three wars during the 18th Century just between France and England: Queen Anne's War (1701 to 1713,) King George's War (1744 to 1748), and the "French and Indian War," known to the European world as the "War of the Spanish Succession," (1754 to 1763). It is clear from the records of the time that the People of the Longhouse remained neutral throughout these conflicts. Although individuals on the road to assimilation, such as the Anglicized Mohawks, who had been coerced into roles as British peasants, could be counted on to aid the colonizers.

If France was unsuccessful in her attempts at military penetration of the territory of the Longhouse, England was far more successful in her social and religious colonization of the Eastern part of our territories. William Johnson was an Irish immigrant who became famous for his influence over certain Mohawks. As an agent of the British Crown, he maintained an embassy as an operational base close to the Mohawk country. He took several Native women as concubines and had several children by them, none of which he ever recognized as heirs. His position was known as "British Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern Department." He is widely credited, by European historians, as a successful manipulator of events and developments on the frontier during his tenure. In today's context, Johnson would be working as an ambassador to a Third World country, executing simultaneously diplomatic, military, intelligence, and foreign aid operations.

During his tenure he engineered the establishment of a beachhead from which immigrants could move Westward to broaden the colony. Mohawk lands along the Susquehanna and Mohawk Rivers were increasingly encroached upon by British settlers, including Johnson himself. By the Spring of 1765, the carefully managed Longhouse environment was in trouble as ignorant and destructive peasant settlers almost eradicated the deer herds.

There was so much trouble with the peasant settlers that the Mohawks, who had so generously allowed them to share their lands, were actually considering moving Westward into Oneida territories to gain some more peace. By the Spring of 1765, many Mohawks had already been displaced and were living as refugees among the other nations.

William Johnson was a master public relations man for the King. He would, on the one hand, apologize for the behavior of the frontiersmen and urge the Mohawks to be patient, and on the other hand encourage more settlers to move into the Mohawk lands. He would make a great show of protecting Hau de no sau nee interests, and in that way encourage the People of the Longhouse to seek a resolution at the bargaining table where they invariably ended up trading land to gain a temporary peace.

Throughout this period many other Native peoples had been moving into our territories to gain some respite from the colonial onslaught. Far to the South, in the colonized area known as the Carolinas, the Tuscarora were faced with imminent destruction. In their drive to gain some more land and economic advantage, English colonizers were using the same techniques which were being employed in the Northeast. In 1713, the dispossessed Tuscaroras withdrew from their homelands and sought protection in the territories of the Hau de no sau nee. They were not the only people who were displaced. Delawares, Tuteloes, Shawnees and others fled to the Hau de no sau nee lands seeking peace.

Peace, however, was not to be. At the approach of the American revolution, the Hau de no sau nee did everything possible to remain neutral. With the decline of France, and the increasing decline in the importance of trade, the settler bourgeoisie of the Anglo colonies cast an increasingly envious eye on the lands of the Longhouse. Still our military power was formidable, and our resolve was to remain neutral.

The policy of England, however, was to involve the Hau de no sau nee in the war. To accomplish this goal, they resorted to bribery, trickery, false propaganda, and the emotional appeal. The Hau de no sau nee continued its policy of neutrality throughout. Both the colonists and the "Loyalists" entered our territories in search of mercenaries. The loyalist strategy was the more successful. They were able to draw out some of our people into a battle with the revolting colonists.

The Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war, made no provision, at least in writing, for the Native nations, which the British Crown had solemnly promised to protect. Thus the representatives of the People of the Longhouse held an international treaty meeting with the new federation called the United States of America in September of 1784. The U.S. demanded huge cessions of territory, especially from the Senecas. The warriors who had been delegated to the meeting eventually signed the treaty. However, they had not been authorized to commit the Hau de no sau nee without consulting them. For a time, the terms of the treaty were not known, as the U.S. would not provide the Hau de no sau nee with a copy of the document. As many Native people knew, to their regrets, signing a treaty and the ratification of a treaty are two separate acts, each necessary before a treaty becomes valid. Although the U.S. Congress ratified the treaty, the legislative council of the Hau de no sau nee met at Buffalo Creek and renounced the agreement.

Somehow the United States takes the position that the Hau de no sau nee ceased to exist by the year 1784, although the Longhouse has continued to this day. There is ample evidence that all the nations continued to participate in the matters of the Great Council, the legislative body of the Confederacy. None of the nations of the league has ever declared themselves separate from the Confederation. The Oneidas, whose reputed allegiance to the United States was based on the existence of Oneida mercenaries, continued to send their delegates to the council, and the Tuscarora remain firmly attached to the League. The Onondagas, Senecas, Cayugas and Mohawks continue to hold their positions within the League. Although the Hau de no sau nee have been severely disrupted by the Westward expansion of the United States, the subsequent surrounding of their lands, and the attempts to devour its people, the Six Nations Confederacy continues to function. Indeed, today its strength continues to be increasing.

By pretending that the Hau de no sau nee government no longer exists, both the U.S. and Britain illegally took Hau de no sau nee territories by simply saying the territories belong to them. To this day, Canada, the former colony of England, has never made a treaty for the lands in the St. Lawrence River Valley. But the truth continues to remain and plague officials yet today. The Hau de no sau nee territories are not and have never been part of the U.S. or Canada. The citizens of the Hau de no sau nee are a separate people, distinct from either Canada or the United States. Because of this, the Hau de no sau nee refuses to recognize a border drawn by a foreign people through our lands.

The policy of the dispossession of North American Native peoples, first by the European kingdoms, and later by the settler regimes, began with the first contact. Dispossession took a number of approaches: the so-called "just warfare" was a strategy by which Native nations were deemed to have offended the Crown and their elimination by fire and sword was justified. That was followed by the Treaty Period in which Native nations were "induced" to sell their lands and move westward. The Treaty Period was in full swing at the beginning of the 19th Century. By 1815, the governor of New York was agitating for the removal of all Native people from the state for "their own good."

While the infamous Trail of Tears was removing Native peoples from the Southeast to Oklahoma, New York State was lobbying for a treaty in 1838 which was intended to remove the Hau de no sau nee, who were on lands that the state wanted, away to an area of Kansas. The principal victims were to be the Senecas.

Like the Termination Policy a century later, the Removal Policy was eventually abandoned due in part to the bad press received during the Cherokee Removal in 1832. During the process of the Cherokee removal, thousands of Cherokee men, women, children and elders were subjected to conditions which caused them to die of exposure, starvation and neglect.

In 1871, the U.S. Congress passed an Act which included a clause that treaties would no longer be made with "Indian Nations." It was at this time that official United States policy toward Native people began to shift to a new strategy. Reports to Congress began to urge that the Native people be assimilated into U.S. society as quickly as possible. The policy of fire and sword, simply began to become less popular among an increasingly significant percentage of the United States population. The principle hindrance to the assimilation of the Native people, according to its most vocal adherents, was the Indian land base. The Native land base was held in common and this was perceived as an uncivilized and unAmerican practice. The assimilationists urged that, if every Indian family owned its own farmstead, they could more readily acquire "civilized" traits. Thus the Dawes Act of 1886 ordered the Native nations stripped of their land base, resulting in the transfer of millions of acres to European hands.

There was consistent pressure in the New York Legislature to "civilize" the Hau de no sau nee. To accomplish this, all vestiges of Hau de no sau nee nationality needed to be destroyed. This is the 19th Century origin of the policy to "educate" the Indian to be culturally European. It was thought that when the Indian was successfully Europeanized, he would no longer be distinct and separate, and that there would no longer be an indigenous people with their own customs and economy. At that point, the Indian could be simply declared to have assimilated into the United States or Canadian society. The net effect would dispense with the entire concept of Native nations, and that would extinguish the claims of those nations to their lands. The report of the Whipple Committee to the New York Legislature in 1888 was clear: "Exterminate the Tribe."

In 1924, the Canadian government "abolished" Hau de no sau nee government at the Grand River territory. The Oneida and Akwesasne territories were invaded and occupied by Canadian troops in order to establish neo-colonial "elective systems" in the name of democracy. Also in 1924, the United States government passed legislation declaring all American Indians to be United States citizens. The 1924 Citizenship Act was an attempt to deny the existence of Native nations, and the rights of these Native nations to their lands. The denial of the existence of Native nations is a way of legitimizing the colonists' claims to the lands. This concept is furthered by the imposition of non-Native forms of government. This also serves to fulfill the colonizer's need to destroy any semblance of sovereignty. The actual process for taking lands can be accomplished when the Native nation no longer exists in its original context -- when it is less of a nation.

With all semblance of a Native nation's original context destroyed, Canada and the United States can rationalize that integration has occurred. With this rationale in hand, both governments have set out to enact their final solutions to the "Indian Problem."

The Hau de no sau nee vigorously objected to the Citizenship Act and maintains to this day that the People of the Longhouse are not citizens of Canada or the United States, but are citizens of their own nations of the League.

The Terminations Act of the 1950s were efforts to simply declare that the Native nations no longer exist and to appropriate their lands. The acts were so disastrous that they caused something of a national scandal. "St. Regis," the European name for Akwesasne, was one of our territories targeted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as "ready for integration."

The BIA based its recommendation on the fact that many Mohawks had acquired at least some of the material conditions which made their community outwardly indistinguishable from the white communities. In fact, however, Akwesasne was, and is, very different from the small towns in the area surrounding it.

Termination submerged as an official policy in the late 1960s. But Termination is simply a means to an end. The objective is the economic exploitation of a people and their lands. The taking of lands and the denial and destruction of Native nations are concrete and undeniable elements in the colonization process as it is applied to Native people surrounded by a settler state. Tools to accomplish this end include guns, disease, revised histories, repressive missionaries, indoctrinating teachers, and these things are often cloaked in codes of law. In the Twentieth Century, the taking of land and the destruction of the culture and Native economy serve to force the Native people into roles as industrial workers, just as in the 19th Century the same processes forced Native people in the U.S. and Canada into roles as landless peasants.

The Hau de no sau nee has, over a period of 375 years, met every definition of an oppressed nation. It has been subjected to raids of extermination from France, England, and the United States. Its people have been driven from their lands, impoverished, and persecuted for their Hau de no sau nee customs. It has been the victim of fraudulent dealings from three European governments which have openly expressed the goal of extermination of the Hau de no sau nee. Our children have been taught to despise their ancestors, their culture, their religion, and their traditional ceremony. Recently, it has been a government-sponsored fad to have bi-lingual/bi-cultural programs in the schools. These programs are not a sincere effort to revitalize the Hau de no sau nee, but exist as an integrationists' ploy to imply "acceptance" from the dominating culture.

Revisionist United States and British historians have cloaked the past in a veil of lies. The national and local governments of the Hau de no sau nee have been suppressed and usurped by the colonial authorities, and their neo-colonial Indian helpers, to carry out policies of repression in the name of "democracy." Generation after generation has seen the Hau de no sau nee land base, and therefore its economic base, shrink under the expansionist policies of the United States, Great Britain, and Canada.

The world is told by colonial government propaganda machines that the Hau de no sau nee are simply "victims of civilization and progress." The truth is that they are the victims of a conscious and persistent effort of destruction directed at them by the European governments and their heirs in North America. The Hau de no sau nee is not suffering a terminal illness of natural causes -- it is being deliberately strangled to death by those who would benefit from its death.

Although treaties may often have been bad deals for the Native nations, the United States and Canada chose not to honor those which exist because to do so would require the return of much of the economic base and sovereignty to the Hau de no sau nee. The treaties contain the potential for independent survival of the Native people. The dishonoring of treaties is essential to the goal of the U.S. and Canadian vested interests which are organized to remove any and all obstacles to their exploitation of the Earth and her peoples.

The European nations of the Western Hemisphere continue to wage war against the Hau de no sau nee. The weapons have changed somewhat -- Indian Education programs and social workers, neo-colonial Indian officials and racist laws are used first. If these methods fail, the guns are still ready, as recent history at Akwesasne and South Dakota have shown.

The effect of all these policies has been the destruction of the culture and therefore the economy of the People of the Longhouse. The traditional ceremony has been largely replaced by the colonial ceremony which serves multinational corporate interests. The colonial ceremony is one that extracts labor and materials from the people of the Hau de no sau nee for the benefit of the colonizers. The Christian religions, the school systems, the neo-colonial elective systems, all work toward these goals.

We are an economically poor people today. Few of us can afford to support the spiritual ceremonies which form the foundations of our traditional economies. The money economy is not adaptable to the real economy of our people. Few of our peoples participate in the Domestic Mode of Production which defines the traditional economy. This is largely because of the colonizer's education system, and also more systematic and brutal attempts at acculturation, have placed neo-colonial governments on our territories. On some of the Hau de no sau nee lands, the Canadian and United States government moneys employ one-third of all employable workers, creating an economic dependence among potential leadership of the Hau de no sau nee, and actively recruiting people away from the Domestic Mode of Production. The traditional economy is under heavy attack from many directions, and all else is an economy of exploitation. The political oppression, the social oppression, the economic oppression, all have the same face. These are the tools of Genocide in North America.

Genocide is alive and well in the territory of the Hau de no sau nee. Its technicians are in Washington, Ottawa, and Albany, and its agents control the schools, the churches, and the neo-colonial "elective system" offices found in our territories. This oppression of the Hau de no sau nee has taken its toll -- but the Hau de no sau nee continues to meet in council, and its members are on the rise. The Hau de no sau nee, the People of the Longhouse, still have a long history ahead. We have developed strategies to resist the economic effects of the conditions we face. But, those strategies require that we revitalize our social and political institutions. This can only be accomplished on sufficient lands within the ancient boundaries of our territories.

We are living in a period of time in which we expect to see great changes in the economy of the colonizers. The imperial powers of the world appear to be facing successful resistance to expansion in Africa, Asia, and other parts of the world. We will soon see the end of an economy based on the supply of cheap oil, natural gas, and other resources, and that will greatly change the face of the world.

For the moment, there is more wealth, more goods and services, more automation than has ever existed in the history of mankind. The world is living in an age of manufactured affluence. But the people of the world have rarely been told the costs in terms of peoples' lifes and suffering, that this affluence has extracted from each of us. Even the people in North America, who seemingly benefit from all these "advances" seem to be unaware of the destruction they are experiencing. The "Modern Age," and its consumer values, has altered, in very basic ways, the very structure of human society, and the basic conditions of the Natural World.

The modern family is an institution which is presently under a great deal of stress. The family in Western society has undergone great changes over the last century. As the Westernization of the world continues, all peoples will be faced with similar stresses and turmoils.

We, the Hau de no sau nee, have clear choices about the future. One of the choices which we have faced is whether to become Westernized, or to remain true to the Way of Life our forefathers developed for us. We have stated our understanding of the history of the changes that have created the present conditions. We have chosen to remain Hau de no sau nee, and within the context of our Way of Life, to set a course of liberation for ourselves and the future generations.

Our liberation process is not one that is exclusive to us as Humans, but also includes the other life forms that coexist and are as oppressed as we. The liberation of the Natural World is a process which is being undertaken in a most difficult environment. The people surrounding us seem to be intent on destroying themselves and every living thing.

Throughout the past four hundred years, the Hau de no sau nee have exerted a great influence on the lives of millions of people. Theories about democracy and classless society have been developed from inadequate interpretations of the true nature of those ideals. This conference may be the time which begins a process which moves toward more real definitions of these concepts.

In our homelands, our people are still struggling and developing strategies for survival. In the Mohawk country, our people have re-occupied lands for the purpose of revitalizing our culture and economy. This settlement, known as Ganienkeh, has been successfully held for more than three years. The Oneida people have been waging a court battle for several years to regain 265,000 acres illegally taken in the 1700s. The Cayugas have also been engaged in an effort to regain 100,000 acres taken during the same period as the theft from the Oneidas. The Onondagas and Tuscaroras have been carrying on an unceasing battle to gain control of the education that their children receive. The Senecas have been forced into a long struggle to protect the last pieces of their land still under traditional government, the lands at the Tonawanda territory. Every day of our lives finds us defending ourselves from some form of intrusion by the State of New York or the United States or Canadian governments.

If we are to continue to survive, we need the help of the international community. We need external presence to bring some sort of stability to the situation of our people. We have learned, too frequently, that what is good law today can rapidly be changed into bad law. Both Canada and the United States have taught us that their legal systems are part of the political machinery which effects the oppression of our peoples.

We are nations by every definition of the term. We have been unable to obtain any semblance of justice in the court systems of the United States or Canada, and we suffer horrible legal injustices which have terrible economic and social consequences for our people. Many of our legal problems involve land and sovereignty over land, and land is the basis of our economy. We are seeking our rights in those areas under International Law.

Lastly, we require economic assistance in the forms of economic aid and technical assistance. We are aware that there exist various international figures who have technical expertise and who are conscious of the development in the context of specific cultures. Our case is appropriate to the deliberations of the United Nations Decolonization Committee. We are engaged in a struggle to decolonize our lands and our lives, but we cannot accomplish this goal alone and unaided.

For centuries we have known that each individual's action creates conditions and situations that affect the world. For centuries we have been careful to avoid any action unless it carried a long-range prospect of promoting harmony and peace in the world. In that context, with our brothers and sisters of the Western Hemisphere, we have journeyed here to discuss these important matters with the other members of the Family of Man.

 

Footnotes

  1. Eric R. Wolf Peasants, Foundations of Modern Anthropology Series (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966), p. 11; see Belshaw, Cyril S., Traditional Exchange and Modern Markets, Modernization of Traditional Societies Series (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965), pp. 53-54.

  2. Kroeber, A.L. Anthropology, Rev. Ed. (New York, 1948), p. 284; see Redfield, Margaret Park, ed. Human Nature and the Study of Society: The Papers of Robert Redfield (Chicago, 1962-3) I, p. 287.

  3. Robert Redfield Peasant Society and Culture: An Anthropological Approach to Civilization (Chicago, 1956), p. 45-6.

  4. Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest, University of North Carolina Press, (Chapel Hill, 1976) p. 105.

  5. Jennings, p. 127.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Agricultural Origins and Dispersals: The Domestication of Animals and Foodstuffs, Carl O. Sauer, MIT Press, 1969.

    Civilization in the West, From the Old Stone Age To the Age of Louis XIV, Crane Brinton, Prentiss Hall, 1973.

    Medieval Technology and Social Change, Lynn White, Jr., Oxford University Press, 1966.

    Origin of the Aryans, Isaac Taylor, Gordon Press, 1976.

    Rome -- The Story of an Empire, J.P. Baladon, McGraw, 1971.

    Seed to Civilization: the Story of Man's Food, Charles B. Heiser, Jr., W.H. Freeman, 1973.

    Stone Age Economics, Marshall Sahlins, Aldine Press, 1972.

    Technology in the Ancient World, Henry Hodges, Knopf, 1970.

 


 

Self-interest hides in many ways, hides under every stone and every act -- hides in prayer, in worship, in having a successful profession, great knowledge, a special reputation, like the speaker. When there is a guru who says, `I know all about it. I will tell you all about it' - is there not self-interest there? This seed of self-interest has been with us for a million years. Our brain is conditioned to self-interest. If one is aware of that, just aware of it, not saying, `I am not self-interested' or `How can one live without self-interest?' but just be aware, then how far can one go, how far can one investigate into oneself to find out for ourselves, each one of us, how in action, in daily activity, in our behaviour, how deeply one can live without a sense of self-interest?

So, if we will, we will examine all that. Self-interest divides, self-interest is the greatest corruption (the word corruption means to break things apart) and where there is self-interest there is fragmentation - your interest as opposed to my interest, my desire opposed to your desire, my urgency to climb the ladder of success opposed to yours. Just observe this; you can't do anything about it -- you understand? - but just observe it, stay with it and see what is taking place.

-- Krishnamurti, Last Talks At Saanen, 1985, pp. 84-85.




back to 6 Nations | many worlds | rat haus | Index | Search | tree