THE MESSAGE OF THE KAYANEREKOWA

Continued from last week

That people…have however a Piece of Civility peculiar to themselves: for a Man would be accounted very impertinent, if he contradicted anything that was said in their Council, and if he does not approve even the greatest Absurdities therein proposed: and therefore they always answer, Niauoa; that is to say, Thou art in the right, Brother; that is well.

Notwithstanding this seeming Approbation, they believe what they please and no more; and therefore ‘tis impossible to know when they are really persuaded of those things you have mentioned unto them, which I take to be one of the greatest Obstructions to their Conversion: for their Civility hindering them from making any Objection, or contradicting what is said unto them, they seem to approve of it, though perhaps they laugh at it in private…

(A New Discovery of a Vast Country in America, Hennepin pg. 86)

The same “civility” that requires the Haudenosaunee to welcome any visitor to their homes and to feed visitors also teaches people to avoid harsh language and hostility to guests. Thus, Christian missionaries had difficulty understanding how they could be so clearly welcomed and fed and listened to without interruption and yet make so little progress in conversions. And they still have that difficulty today.

The Rules of the Council ensure that speakers may speak until they have said all they have to say (this is usually indicated by the words Da neh to---“that is all”). Council rules, not explicitly stated in the Kayanerekowa, but understood by all, ensure that there are no interruptions.

It is considered improper to single out any person, to name a person, to point at a person: all these things tend to work against the deliberations of the council as a single mind. In fact, any form of language which is hostile or accusatory can cause hard feelings and affect the state of mind necessary for councils to do their work. Instead, forms of speech and tenses which do not exist in English are used to make the proposals tentative, respectful. Hard words were rare. Thus, in the 1790’s, when a spokesman for the western nations accused the Haudenosaunee of questionable dealings with the United States, and actually “threw down at the Seneca’s feet, the strings of the Wampum on which he spoke”, the Haudenosaunee replied:

Brothers

We desire you to sit still, we shall move to a little distance to consult on what answer to give you. You have talked to us a little too roughly, you have thrown us on our backs.

The Farmer’s Brother then put the String, which had been thrown down, over his head & hanging down his back they then moved away & remained an hour.

(Simcoe Papers. Vol. II, p.224)

Rather than succumb to the hard or hot feelings that would have resulted from their being “thrown on their backs”, the Haudenosaunee withdrew, cooled off, and returned to restore unanimity and peace with their explanations. When the Seneca Royaner known to the English as the Farmer’s Brother put the wampum on his head, he was saying that the Haudenosaunee were considering the matter that had been thrown across the council fire, but had not accepted it.

Once the “Younger Brothers” have come to one mind on the issue, they state their feelings to the Council, sending the matter back to the “Elder Brothers”. If there had been no change made by the Oneidas and Cayugas to the original proposal, then the Senecas and Mohawks will refer the issue for final confirmation to the Onondagas, who are the “Firekeepers” of the Council.

Implicit in all the procedure of council is the assumption that there is always enough time in this world to do things right. Historical records show councils taking days or weeks, sometimes because not all the required participants had arrived (transportation two centuries ago being less rapid and more dangerous that today). Consensus was built carefully and slowly, point by separate point. Where British and Canadian parliamentary procedures moves through a series of votes, the treaty procedure built consensus—coming to a single mind—by working on principles shared by the participants, moving those principles onto the fabric of the particular issues that were being discussed. The relationship between the parties, their respect for one another, their previous agreements and commitments, and their commitment to peace and the future generations were part of what kept them moving toward that consensus.