Not for nothing, but I think "Member of Parliament" is potentially a really good term for certain indigenous ranks. Parliament simply means "group that discusses issues"
council makes a lot more sense for what i have heard about native tribal structures. but they are all anglicized descriptions of “foreign” cultures so none of it is going to be perfect and i don’t know why anyone would take every word the settlers would use as legitimate titles for native people. its like believing julius caesar when he called tribes germanic or celtic because he mixed up the cultures a lot because he didn’t know anything about the cultures.
It's very similar to the word 'captain'. Sometimes it means 'person in charge' like with a team captain, sometimes it's a specific job like the captain of a ship, sometimes it's a rank like in the military. Sometimes people just use it casually to show respect. If you hear that someone is a 'captain' you don't actually know what that means until you get more context.
Yes, but note how recklessly and carelessly the term "chief" is specifically thrown around with respect to Native American (and African) societies in the modern era. We do not see similar terms thrown around so flagrantly wrt. Europe. No monarch is called a 'captain' unless they actually are acting within that capacity. Any native American with authority is liable to being called a "chief".
a lot of people struggle with historical turns taking place as a result of, as you put it, "some guy", but some guy has been the silent lever of history
Really fascinating thoughts here. I'm currently reading A Spirited Resistance by Gregory Evans Dowd, which is about the pan-Indian movements which formed among eigtheenth century Algonquians, particularly the Shawnee and the Delaware. Dowd makes it clear that as the balance of power shifted more in favor of Europeans, many indigenous people responded by doubling down on their spiritual and national identities. Religion as a faucet of your ethnic or national identity is a tale as old as time; it still holds a lot of sway worldwide. In the eighteenth century, both French Catholicism and English Anglicanism fit this trend as well. But the eighteenth century is a time when we start to see the rise of Evangelical Protestantism, which despite its current connotations is supposed to be a religious identity that transcends national identity. But Quakers, Moravians, Methodists, and others were all forming a Christianity that ostensibly was supposed to be something greater than an extension of national identity. British Colonial America was at their epicenter because these groups usually weren't welcome in Europe. By dissenting from the state church and insisting on separation of church and state, they were troublemakers. I have heard that the Moravians were the only Christian group to see successful missions that weren't coercive on some level. They still wanted some degree of assimilation into European culture because the Moravians ultimately were eighteenth century Europeans, but they didn't require anyone to switch their allegiance from an Indigenous nation to a European one. I haven't been able to track down where I heard this though, so it could be all wrong. What I am certain of from A Spirited Resistance was that Algonquian communities in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries viewed their Moravian conationals with suspicion, though not outright hostility. Becoming a Moravian meant you were going to live in a new community, surrounded by your coreligionists.
Our relationship with Christianity is also more complex as we already had a semimonotheistic bent vis a vis The Great Spirit. This transcendent being was often equated to YHWH during the colonial period, and not solely by the colonizing proselytizers. Many of our converts and analogous theologians reached the equation conclusion on our own.
"Chief" just means "foremost" or "prominent," and as a result it's a very general term. It's useful for making generalisations about the politics of broad groups of people or as a general term for "notable person," but it can get awfully confusing if you try to use it as an actual official title (or in place of one).
The term prince is also used ambigiously when referring to someone in eastern Europe for example. The terms constable, warden, sherrif and bailiff during the medieval period represent people in important leadership positions but at least in modern Canada these are very less important officials.
I had noticed the overly broad and imprecise use of the "chief", but not thought through the ramifications. Once again you brilliantly present material for thought. What do you think some English words to describe leadership positions that are now just called chief might be? Counselor? Emissary? Ambassador? Peacekeeper? Legate? Council member? Headman? Sherriff? I'd love to see your take on this.
It depends on what the "chiefs" are actually doing. If a "chief" is overseeing a town or village, perhaps we may call them a "headman", a "mayor" or a "governor". If they are specifically a war leader, perhaps "general" is more appropriate. And so on.
Sounds like there was a lot of behind-the-scenes power struggles and rivalries, in the case of the four kings. "Chief" is almost definitely an assumption on the Europeans part of a strict hierarchical political structure, much like was ubiquitous in most of the Eurasian world. One would have thought that after a few centuries of contact they would have figured it out, though. Perhaps some did, but the European political leaders ignored this knowledge.
I wonder if this ignorance of power dynamics was intentional. Everywhere European colonizers went, they used a divide and conquer strategy among the natives; the British were the worst offenders about this. So with the gigantic caveat that I have no record of this for the four kings, I wouldn't be surprised if British colonial officials knew that 1) Eastern Woodland power structures were more complex than chiefdoms; 2) that many Eastern Woodland peoples wanted European allies, or at least partners; 3) that there was disagreement within native nations about which Europeans to work with, and how closely to work with them. Therefore, if you pick one guy with a favorable in (like the Anglican faith) and treat him as the "chief," then you've basically chosen an ambassador for the other side. In the absence of evidence, I do not think this was the reason behind anything but I would not be at all surprised if it was. The British were wily.
@@doomkitty8386 OH there's all kinds of evidence of manipulations being nothing but intentional, fast-tracked to hook up settler men of various stations, with typically temporary wives of native nations, convert their sons into "a chief" > "THE chief", by hook or crook. Until appearances (signatories & terms finalized) would at least suffice... Settler Cointelpro. Flower Moon Killers. From pretty near Day 1, there's the scheming and orchestration, I keep finding more documentation of levels I had no idea could get dug up in the archives.
There are titles or positions in the current, past, and lost cultures that get generalised too common and yet never get disclaimer by "historians." Like the word Shah, which is a shortened from old Persian word doesn't strictly mean king or emperor title. Another word is Caliph, which comes from an arabic word for succesor as in who succeeds in work positions and not necessarily religious or political title.
Most settlers havent been taught the socioeconomic tools to understand that european feudalism as a mode of production couldnt possibly have existed in what we call America. Your videos are awesome please make more!
Really great subject and I'm all for a longer video. I know I've certainly seen it many times, Chief used wholesale, use of Shasheen, war chief or band chief etc. The 4 Kings example is fascinating and I think your supposition might be correct
A quick google search reveals that the word "Chief" is a French word with no origin in any indigenous American peoples. It's like applying the title of "King" to anyone in a position of authority, which also happened plenty during colonization (King Philip aka Metacomet for example) with no regard given to the particular powers or responsibilities of a person in that position.
I just refer to every public figure as "a suit" or "another power-hungry expletive". Is it even possible to know who is in charge of countries and empires nowadays? I guess we just have a very perverse relationship to power.
Well, there are two problems. English is language, and like all others, a language it interacts with and evolves with the culture. So, its main function is the representation of the thoughts of the anglo parlants in an anglo culture, not a native North american culture. And then the second problem, is that of the difference between the European culture that comes for the indo European, that were, if I remember correctly, different for the importance that they given to the hierarchy. Meanwhile, the rest of the world wasn't that hierarchical. The evolution of european nations was more and more based in the uniting of the hierarchies, but in other's places, the evolution of societies came without the centralization of the power, but with other's, more democratics, structures. Omg I'm so nerd😂
The thing with the word chief is that it's an English word and they're are numerous Native American languages which are different from English and that the word chief is just going to create a bunch of weird baggage which doesn't really mesh well with how various tribes understand or view things even the word shaman is one of those words that have a certain type of baggage which might not mesh well with the point of view or understanding of many indigenous people.Its actually a little bit ironic how shaman was a word which originally only applied to Siberian culture but then it wound up getting implied to the indigenous people of different cultures.The word chief came from Chieftian which I think was still more of a Celtic term but it still creates some weird baggage when you try to apply that to Native Americans.
In the governance of a Mohawk village of the colonial era (and perhaps the in the Iroquois Confederacy generally?), women elders had as much say in affairs as men did, especially in the area of land use. Excluding these women from meetings with colonists to determine land sales was as telling in the colonialist manipulations as the flowing alcohol was. Anyway, the point is that there was not one village boss that governed everything. Decisions were made amongst a _group_ of elders.
I agree, but Heck, you could fill a book with shady dealing regarding the land sales and that wouldn't even be one of the main problems. The land sales were often slimy to a ludicrous degree. Oftentimes they would just find some random unrelated guy, get him to sign off on the sales and then claim it's all legal because they have an x signature. Like somebody going to your neighbour down the road and offering him thirty bucks to buy your house. Then calling the cops on you when you refuse to move out.
@@MalcolmPL = _"...you could fill a book with shady dealing regarding the land sales..."_ There is such a book, at least regarding what was to become New York state: _The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution,_ by Alan Taylor,, New York: Random House, 2006. The book heavily features Joseph Brant's post Wheeler School days. Every time the text moves to another area of the region, I could see the next round of exploitation coming for the Native group in question like a runaway freight train. Over and over and over. If only the Nations had stuck together! But they were doing what they thought was best, were too trusting, were unable to see the manipulation, and didn't have context for the big-picture outcome. I cried reading that book.
Brandt is called a "chief" because he is Indian; because he is "brown". It is naked racism, and not much more complicated than that. The same issue permeates study of African history. A king, a governor, a mayor, a general, a lord -- they are all "chiefs" in a great share of the literature.
Honestly, the parallel you make between chief & boss is sufficient. If you seek proof that the powers that be in the past were happy to call someone the boss of some such people in order to elevate their legitimacy, thereby making discussions (or war) with this supposed boss legitimate, then you have already found it. This answers the question. At best it is crude, more likely it is crude & also cynical. That was the times, & these characteristics remain true now on the whole, hence your valid cause for complaint.
I always thought there were good arguments on both sides; the want for sovereignty because of past oppression, and the want for sovereignty because of the contributions to the Canadian nation with the fur trade and providing men to fight in wars that protected the established colonial borders.
What if we called em all Shōgun 😂 As for Sachem that's pretty much what happened in Spanish. The Taino word Cacique became the go to word for most groups the Spanish enfountered. The word is still used as the term for chiefs in often indigenous remote villages
Which historical sources are more accurate when it comes to the societal structure of the Six Nations? It seems like many of the European sources are basically tainted because they were written by people who didn’t understand the social system they encountered and thus applied their own to it, often in a way that served their interests.
They all have major problems, I haven't read anyone from my period who had more than a basic grasp. There could be someone from the seventeen hundreds who's decent, maybe William Johnson, but I don't know.
"Consultant" is another troublesome word. We use the word Rangatira which is someone who earns the mana to lead in certain situations. Whoever rises to the challenge. Colonials just try to subvert the meaning of everything indigenous.
Should have said first and second, "No gods other than me and no graven images." It basically makes it sinful to accept the legitimacy of anything that doesn't derive from Yhwh. The Great Law is supposed to come from Peacemaker and Sapling and was thus seen as heathen.
They got that coke can culture look. You know from the 1950s coka cola adverts were they're always waving a can in their hand while doing typical American things. You see in history reproduction art. Where you're typical bronze age Europe scene has a warrior waving his bronze sword, a woodensman cutting a tree with his bronze axe and a lady looking into a bronze mirror in a surreal 50s advert to buy bronze.
@@Orandu Extra History did an adequate series that can serve as an introduction. It's very much an external perspective, but it gets you the right idea.
@@MalcolmPL Thanks for Answering! Is there anywhere I can find more information on Haudenosaunee religious beliefs? Does the religion have any particular name? Also for the second question how would this religion violate the second commandment? Are there specific examples of this?
The extremely widespread usage of Chief as relates to indigenous social and political structures is just kind of plainly frustrating to me. A 6th century Wendel or Gothic "Chieftain" or "Chief" is simply NOT the same social and economic and political position as what "Chief" denotes for indigenous peope on an entirely different continent! We dont have enogh respect snd interest in vernacular self-descriptors, and are much too concerned with lingustic streamlining to enable to fast-paced consumption of pseudohistory. Ive experienced a lot of the same thoughts expressed here, even if often not about NA indigenous cultures.
You seem to have misunderstood, let me explain in a bit more detail. The second commandment is essentially that thou shalt have no gods other than me. The Great Law of Peace comes from the Iroquoian god Sapling, Sapling is not the Judaeo-Christian Yhwh, therefore problems. Thus if one fully recognizes the Great Law, they are recognizing the authority of some god other than Yhwh. Conflicting directly with the second commandment. Even if one secularizes the Great Law it still conflicts, because if Yhwh is the one true god, then how can the Great Law be a good thing but still foreign to EuroChristians? If it was good, in line with Yhwh's plan, surely the Christian nations would have developed some analogue under Yhwh's supervision. Recognizing the Great Law in a secular sense thus means recognizing that man can be good without God, thus placing Man as the false idol in conflict with the commandment.
Considering for example the documentary "Secerts of the tribe" even rather modern Ethnography and Anthropology seem highly unreliable because of all kinds of biases and egoistic motivations scewing the research. How the Yanomami tricked Napoleon Chagnon with obscene made up names will forever be funny though
Skennen Iah teske’ te u need to fact check there is a lot more to everything you talked about but everything is pretty inaccurate besides what the main part of the video is about the (Chief) Chiefs were Warriors u can see it in handsome lakes story he had face tattoos and was warrior and he was a condoled roiáner under the title of skaniaterí:io Kahnawà:ke came later it was the oniedas who first settled noth of kahnawà:ke at a place called kenhtà:ke and they where being converted in Kahnawà:ke just like other villages and had chiefs in Kahnawà:ke their was no split like how you are talking because it takes long to convert a hole group of ppl when all they knew was a polytheistic culture being converted to Christianity. If you read records, you would see how they were still doing ceremonies and upholding the great law. All of the Mohawk Kings had tattoos the one with the wampum isn’t Mohawk the other guy is u can tell by the design they’re are Rotiiàner who have a title called door keepers and those are some clear examples that Chief weren’t all about peace and the peace that they were about was for our people not the whole world the Mohawk with the Greek looking shirt could be accurate because if you look at his arm, you can see that there’s a sleeve they sometimes did in that hotter months they would cut the shirt and wear one arm out like how you see in the picture Niawen
I accept the notion that I made more than my share of mistakes and that the information presented is oversimplified and/or speculative. But I think that you are incorrect about most of what you present.
@@MalcolmPLplease do your research because everything I said is in the great law or the code and I’m Kahnawa’kehró:non so I think I would know about my own people and family show one of the chiefs and they will tell u what I say is tru
Not for nothing, but I think "Member of Parliament" is potentially a really good term for certain indigenous ranks. Parliament simply means "group that discusses issues"
council makes a lot more sense for what i have heard about native tribal structures. but they are all anglicized descriptions of “foreign” cultures so none of it is going to be perfect and i don’t know why anyone would take every word the settlers would use as legitimate titles for native people. its like believing julius caesar when he called tribes germanic or celtic because he mixed up the cultures a lot because he didn’t know anything about the cultures.
It's very similar to the word 'captain'. Sometimes it means 'person in charge' like with a team captain, sometimes it's a specific job like the captain of a ship, sometimes it's a rank like in the military. Sometimes people just use it casually to show respect.
If you hear that someone is a 'captain' you don't actually know what that means until you get more context.
Yes, but note how recklessly and carelessly the term "chief" is specifically thrown around with respect to Native American (and African) societies in the modern era. We do not see similar terms thrown around so flagrantly wrt. Europe. No monarch is called a 'captain' unless they actually are acting within that capacity. Any native American with authority is liable to being called a "chief".
a lot of people struggle with historical turns taking place as a result of, as you put it, "some guy", but some guy has been the silent lever of history
Really fascinating thoughts here. I'm currently reading A Spirited Resistance by Gregory Evans Dowd, which is about the pan-Indian movements which formed among eigtheenth century Algonquians, particularly the Shawnee and the Delaware. Dowd makes it clear that as the balance of power shifted more in favor of Europeans, many indigenous people responded by doubling down on their spiritual and national identities. Religion as a faucet of your ethnic or national identity is a tale as old as time; it still holds a lot of sway worldwide. In the eighteenth century, both French Catholicism and English Anglicanism fit this trend as well.
But the eighteenth century is a time when we start to see the rise of Evangelical Protestantism, which despite its current connotations is supposed to be a religious identity that transcends national identity. But Quakers, Moravians, Methodists, and others were all forming a Christianity that ostensibly was supposed to be something greater than an extension of national identity. British Colonial America was at their epicenter because these groups usually weren't welcome in Europe. By dissenting from the state church and insisting on separation of church and state, they were troublemakers.
I have heard that the Moravians were the only Christian group to see successful missions that weren't coercive on some level. They still wanted some degree of assimilation into European culture because the Moravians ultimately were eighteenth century Europeans, but they didn't require anyone to switch their allegiance from an Indigenous nation to a European one. I haven't been able to track down where I heard this though, so it could be all wrong. What I am certain of from A Spirited Resistance was that Algonquian communities in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries viewed their Moravian conationals with suspicion, though not outright hostility. Becoming a Moravian meant you were going to live in a new community, surrounded by your coreligionists.
Our relationship with Christianity is also more complex as we already had a semimonotheistic bent vis a vis The Great Spirit.
This transcendent being was often equated to YHWH during the colonial period, and not solely by the colonizing proselytizers.
Many of our converts and analogous theologians reached the equation conclusion on our own.
I see this same equation between The Great Spirit and YHWH among some Indian Christians today.
"Chief" just means "foremost" or "prominent," and as a result it's a very general term. It's useful for making generalisations about the politics of broad groups of people or as a general term for "notable person," but it can get awfully confusing if you try to use it as an actual official title (or in place of one).
The term prince is also used ambigiously when referring to someone in eastern Europe for example. The terms constable, warden, sherrif and bailiff during the medieval period represent people in important leadership positions but at least in modern Canada these are very less important officials.
Extremely interesting
I had noticed the overly broad and imprecise use of the "chief", but not thought through the ramifications. Once again you brilliantly present material for thought. What do you think some English words to describe leadership positions that are now just called chief might be? Counselor? Emissary? Ambassador? Peacekeeper? Legate? Council member? Headman? Sherriff? I'd love to see your take on this.
It depends on what the "chiefs" are actually doing. If a "chief" is overseeing a town or village, perhaps we may call them a "headman", a "mayor" or a "governor". If they are specifically a war leader, perhaps "general" is more appropriate. And so on.
Interesting as always, im glad you make these videos
Very interesting. Thanks for giving food for thought.
Dude you’re such a good historian it’s refreshing
No I'm not. I'm good at asking questions, but my research methodology is poor and my historiography is full of holes.
@@MalcolmPL - Even so, you bring a new point of view to the majority of Americans.
Excellent video, sir. It would be great to see more videos on this or similar topics.
this guy does so much thinking. thank u
Sounds like there was a lot of behind-the-scenes power struggles and rivalries, in the case of the four kings. "Chief" is almost definitely an assumption on the Europeans part of a strict hierarchical political structure, much like was ubiquitous in most of the Eurasian world. One would have thought that after a few centuries of contact they would have figured it out, though. Perhaps some did, but the European political leaders ignored this knowledge.
I wonder if this ignorance of power dynamics was intentional. Everywhere European colonizers went, they used a divide and conquer strategy among the natives; the British were the worst offenders about this. So with the gigantic caveat that I have no record of this for the four kings, I wouldn't be surprised if British colonial officials knew that 1) Eastern Woodland power structures were more complex than chiefdoms; 2) that many Eastern Woodland peoples wanted European allies, or at least partners; 3) that there was disagreement within native nations about which Europeans to work with, and how closely to work with them. Therefore, if you pick one guy with a favorable in (like the Anglican faith) and treat him as the "chief," then you've basically chosen an ambassador for the other side. In the absence of evidence, I do not think this was the reason behind anything but I would not be at all surprised if it was. The British were wily.
@@doomkitty8386 OH there's all kinds of evidence of manipulations being nothing but intentional, fast-tracked to hook up settler men of various stations, with typically temporary wives of native nations, convert their sons into "a chief" > "THE chief", by hook or crook.
Until appearances (signatories & terms finalized) would at least suffice...
Settler Cointelpro. Flower Moon Killers.
From pretty near Day 1, there's the scheming and orchestration, I keep finding more documentation of levels I had no idea could get dug up in the archives.
There are titles or positions in the current, past, and lost cultures that get generalised too common and yet never get disclaimer by "historians." Like the word Shah, which is a shortened from old Persian word doesn't strictly mean king or emperor title. Another word is Caliph, which comes from an arabic word for succesor as in who succeeds in work positions and not necessarily religious or political title.
Most settlers havent been taught the socioeconomic tools to understand that european feudalism as a mode of production couldnt possibly have existed in what we call America. Your videos are awesome please make more!
Really great subject and I'm all for a longer video. I know I've certainly seen it many times, Chief used wholesale, use of Shasheen, war chief or band chief etc. The 4 Kings example is fascinating and I think your supposition might be correct
i don't know that other allan, but it sounds like he must be a great guy, i like him already. thanks for another interesting vid!
A quick google search reveals that the word "Chief" is a French word with no origin in any indigenous American peoples. It's like applying the title of "King" to anyone in a position of authority, which also happened plenty during colonization (King Philip aka Metacomet for example) with no regard given to the particular powers or responsibilities of a person in that position.
Four Mohawk kings as another key example.
= Like "King / Chief Powhatan", actually Wahunsenacawh, an elder of the Powhatan of Virginia, the father of
"Princess" Pocahontas.
I just refer to every public figure as "a suit" or "another power-hungry expletive". Is it even possible to know who is in charge of countries and empires nowadays? I guess we just have a very perverse relationship to power.
Lots of food for thought, as usual.
Well, there are two problems.
English is language, and like all others, a language it interacts with and evolves with the culture. So, its main function is the representation of the thoughts of the anglo parlants in an anglo culture, not a native North american culture. And then the second problem, is that of the difference between the European culture that comes for the indo European, that were, if I remember correctly, different for the importance that they given to the hierarchy. Meanwhile, the rest of the world wasn't that hierarchical. The evolution of european nations was more and more based in the uniting of the hierarchies, but in other's places, the evolution of societies came without the centralization of the power, but with other's, more democratics, structures.
Omg I'm so nerd😂
The thing with the word chief is that it's an English word and they're are numerous Native American languages which are different from English and that the word chief is just going to create a bunch of weird baggage which doesn't really mesh well with how various tribes understand or view things even the word shaman is one of those words that have a certain type of baggage which might not mesh well with the point of view or understanding of many indigenous people.Its actually a little bit ironic how shaman was a word which originally only applied to Siberian culture but then it wound up getting implied to the indigenous people of different cultures.The word chief came from Chieftian which I think was still more of a Celtic term but it still creates some weird baggage when you try to apply that to Native Americans.
In the governance of a Mohawk village of the colonial era (and perhaps the in the Iroquois Confederacy generally?), women elders had as much say in affairs as men did, especially in the area of land use. Excluding these women from meetings with colonists to determine land sales was as telling in the colonialist manipulations as the flowing alcohol was.
Anyway, the point is that there was not one village boss that governed everything. Decisions were made amongst a _group_ of elders.
I agree, but Heck, you could fill a book with shady dealing regarding the land sales and that wouldn't even be one of the main problems. The land sales were often slimy to a ludicrous degree.
Oftentimes they would just find some random unrelated guy, get him to sign off on the sales and then claim it's all legal because they have an x signature.
Like somebody going to your neighbour down the road and offering him thirty bucks to buy your house. Then calling the cops on you when you refuse to move out.
@@MalcolmPL = _"...you could fill a book with shady dealing regarding the land sales..."_
There is such a book, at least regarding what was to become New York state: _The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution,_ by Alan Taylor,, New York: Random House, 2006. The book heavily features Joseph Brant's post Wheeler School days. Every time the text moves to another area of the region, I could see the next round of exploitation coming for the Native group in question like a runaway freight train. Over and over and over. If only the Nations had stuck together! But they were doing what they thought was best, were too trusting, were unable to see the manipulation, and didn't have context for the big-picture outcome. I cried reading that book.
Brandt is called a "chief" because he is Indian; because he is "brown". It is naked racism, and not much more complicated than that. The same issue permeates study of African history. A king, a governor, a mayor, a general, a lord -- they are all "chiefs" in a great share of the literature.
how interesting
Honestly, the parallel you make between chief & boss is sufficient. If you seek proof that the powers that be in the past were happy to call someone the boss of some such people in order to elevate their legitimacy, thereby making discussions (or war) with this supposed boss legitimate, then you have already found it. This answers the question. At best it is crude, more likely it is crude & also cynical. That was the times, & these characteristics remain true now on the whole, hence your valid cause for complaint.
I always thought there were good arguments on both sides; the want for sovereignty because of past oppression, and the want for sovereignty because of the contributions to the Canadian nation with the fur trade and providing men to fight in wars that protected the established colonial borders.
What if we called em all Shōgun 😂
As for Sachem that's pretty much what happened in Spanish. The Taino word Cacique became the go to word for most groups the Spanish enfountered.
The word is still used as the term for chiefs in often indigenous remote villages
Which historical sources are more accurate when it comes to the societal structure of the Six Nations? It seems like many of the European sources are basically tainted because they were written by people who didn’t understand the social system they encountered and thus applied their own to it, often in a way that served their interests.
They all have major problems, I haven't read anyone from my period who had more than a basic grasp. There could be someone from the seventeen hundreds who's decent, maybe William Johnson, but I don't know.
@@MalcolmPLwhat is “your” period ?
Early 16th Iroquoia, got it
👮♂️
"Consultant" is another troublesome word. We use the word Rangatira which is someone who earns the mana to lead in certain situations. Whoever rises to the challenge. Colonials just try to subvert the meaning of everything indigenous.
What was the argument for the second commandement conflicting with the Great Law?
Should have said first and second, "No gods other than me and no graven images."
It basically makes it sinful to accept the legitimacy of anything that doesn't derive from Yhwh. The Great Law is supposed to come from Peacemaker and Sapling and was thus seen as heathen.
@@MalcolmPL Oh thank you for your response!
They got that coke can culture look. You know from the 1950s coka cola adverts were they're always waving a can in their hand while doing typical American things. You see in history reproduction art. Where you're typical bronze age Europe scene has a warrior waving his bronze sword, a woodensman cutting a tree with his bronze axe and a lady looking into a bronze mirror in a surreal 50s advert to buy bronze.
Is it accurate to say the great law of peace functioned as a religion? In what way would it violate the second commandment?
It's not the religion itself, but it is heavily tied into the religion. Peace is seen as the will of the creator. A law not of man but of nature.
I’d like to hear more about the great law of peace
@@Orandu Extra History did an adequate series that can serve as an introduction. It's very much an external perspective, but it gets you the right idea.
@@MalcolmPL Thanks for Answering! Is there anywhere I can find more information on Haudenosaunee religious beliefs? Does the religion have any particular name? Also for the second question how would this religion violate the second commandment? Are there specific examples of this?
The extremely widespread usage of Chief as relates to indigenous social and political structures is just kind of plainly frustrating to me. A 6th century Wendel or Gothic "Chieftain" or "Chief" is simply NOT the same social and economic and political position as what "Chief" denotes for indigenous peope on an entirely different continent! We dont have enogh respect snd interest in vernacular self-descriptors, and are much too concerned with lingustic streamlining to enable to fast-paced consumption of pseudohistory. Ive experienced a lot of the same thoughts expressed here, even if often not about NA indigenous cultures.
🗿👍
Why is the second commandment incompatible with upholding the great law of peace?
Its a law that comes from someone other than Yhwh.
@@MalcolmPL Why the distinction from the rest of the commandments, wouldn’t they all be laws from someone other than Yhwh?
You seem to have misunderstood, let me explain in a bit more detail.
The second commandment is essentially that thou shalt have no gods other than me.
The Great Law of Peace comes from the Iroquoian god Sapling, Sapling is not the Judaeo-Christian Yhwh, therefore problems.
Thus if one fully recognizes the Great Law, they are recognizing the authority of some god other than Yhwh. Conflicting directly with the second commandment.
Even if one secularizes the Great Law it still conflicts, because if Yhwh is the one true god, then how can the Great Law be a good thing but still foreign to EuroChristians? If it was good, in line with Yhwh's plan, surely the Christian nations would have developed some analogue under Yhwh's supervision.
Recognizing the Great Law in a secular sense thus means recognizing that man can be good without God, thus placing Man as the false idol in conflict with the commandment.
@@MalcolmPL I see, thank you
@@MalcolmPLcouldn’t it be the same thing but just understood in a different cultural context
Considering for example the documentary "Secerts of the tribe" even rather modern Ethnography and Anthropology seem highly unreliable because of all kinds of biases and egoistic motivations scewing the research. How the Yanomami tricked Napoleon Chagnon with obscene made up names will forever be funny though
Skennen Iah teske’ te u need to fact check there is a lot more to everything you talked about but everything is pretty inaccurate besides what the main part of the video is about the (Chief) Chiefs were Warriors u can see it in handsome lakes story he had face tattoos and was warrior and he was a condoled roiáner under the title of skaniaterí:io Kahnawà:ke came later it was the oniedas who first settled noth of kahnawà:ke at a place called kenhtà:ke and they where being converted in Kahnawà:ke just like other villages and had chiefs in Kahnawà:ke their was no split like how you are talking because it takes long to convert a hole group of ppl when all they knew was a polytheistic culture being converted to Christianity. If you read records, you would see how they were still doing ceremonies and upholding the great law. All of the Mohawk Kings had tattoos the one with the wampum isn’t Mohawk the other guy is u can tell by the design they’re are Rotiiàner who have a title called door keepers and those are some clear examples that Chief weren’t all about peace and the peace that they were about was for our people not the whole world the Mohawk with the Greek looking shirt could be accurate because if you look at his arm, you can see that there’s a sleeve they sometimes did in that hotter months they would cut the shirt and wear one arm out like how you see in the picture Niawen
I accept the notion that I made more than my share of mistakes and that the information presented is oversimplified and/or speculative. But I think that you are incorrect about most of what you present.
@@MalcolmPLplease do your research because everything I said is in the great law or the code and I’m Kahnawa’kehró:non so I think I would know about my own people and family show one of the chiefs and they will tell u what I say is tru