When interacting with members or groups of indigenous peoples of the New World, European settlers found themselves quite frustrated. They quickly discovered that the native populations were totally devoid of European concepts such as king and royalty, ownership and sovereignty, money and usury, even legal contract and writing. The lack of use and or command of this latter concept, writing, proved to be especially disabling, but it was the lack of singular authority figures that proved most stressful and confusing. How could these somewhat-civilized peoples (a designation that was, from the rather-arrogant European perspective, as-yet debatable, at best conditional, and ostensibly provisional) lead organized lives in community while professing (and displaying) a complete absence of hierarchical arrangements? This inability of the settlers to negotiate contracts of importance is what proved most unsettling since it placed a significant obstacle in the way of carrying out of any and virtually all capitalistic business (especially when reinforced by the Indians' complete lack of comprehension of both property and ownership).
As was their custom in dealings back "home," European explorers, be they soldiers, traders, and/or other representatives acting in some sort of assigned (or usurped) leadership roles, wanted to meet with singular representatives of similar, if not equal, importance from the local community, town, or "tribe" whose lands and hunting grounds they were hoping to "entreat" or negotiate for peaceful use and/or materially mutually satisfying trade. The immigrant colonists had extreme difficulty comprehending the fact that the native peoples had no concepts much less valuation of hierarchy, property, or even expediency. Myopic, arrogant, presumptuous, and xenocentric--as well as imbued with and exuding a mentality of domination, appropriation, and subjugation--the Europeans found themselves imposing their own values, beliefs, and systems upon the peoples they encountered, assuming in their self-righteous narcissistic way that everyone on the planet thought and acted as they did or, if they didn't, that they should. Thus the nominal terms of "king" or "chief" began to become universally applied in order to designated leaders who would then be deemed worthy and appropriate for serious negotiations in "matters of state." The Europeans quite naturally--even bull-headedly--chose males for the designated honorifics as that was their custom (and, therefore, preference) back home--this despite the fact that it was expressed, and quite obvious, that women in had equal voice and equal valuation and placement in tribal decision-making processes (and were often visibly more experienced and competent [as well as hard-nosed] at trade negotiations).
An equally frustrating element to any kind of negotiations with their new "partners in trade" was the fact that no Native tribe or people was in possession of their own written language. How could contracts and treaties and bills of sale be documented and sealed without written forms when one of the negotiating parties did not, in fact, could not value writing and the "written bond" in the same way that Europeans did?
The frustrated (and impatient) Europeans were looking to make trade agreements and land use negotiations with an entire population who had absolutely no knowledge of (or use for) systems of property and ownership, systems of contract and much less systems of money and banking, law and legal enforcement--and this became doubly frustrating when dealing with a vast and ubiquitous population of "humans" who lacked assignations or recognition of individual "leaders" or singular figureheads to sit atop the hierarchies that they were so used to dealing with (such as kings, lords, owners, officers, fathers, priests, lawyers, "masters," and other appointed or elected representatives and officials). It was professed, and observed, that the native communities the colonizers encountered applied (almost universally) a rotating, flatline, egalitarian and even democratic structure to their leadership decision-making and dispute settlement processes.
Thus arose the European contrivance of naming or creating those "figureheads" with which their representatives could negotiate for local (some thought universal) land and hunting and fishing rights, trade agreements, bathroom privileges, etc. This initial European habit of assigning representative, authoritarian, and even kingly respect (if in name only) to the fairly random selection of a particularly virile, socially-engaging, or respected tribal elders as their representative in treaty negotiations was soon proved ineffectual and in need of adjustment when the Colonizers realized that the individuals with whom they made these agreements and/or treaties were only serving themselves and were not, in fact, held in any higher regard or respect among their peoples than any one else. To their horror, the "treaties" were soon rendered ineffective and inappropriate when other members of a town or community rebelled against the so-called "legally-binding contracts" by not only circumventing or, in most cases, completely disregarding all conditions and stipulations of the current contracts but seeking out such an agreement/arrangement for themselves (with all of its same commensurate levels of reward [in the forms of respect, honor, trade, and shiny baubles). One can only imagine the shock and disbelief the Europeans must have felt at such blatant (and seemingly innocent) disregard for their "sacred" treaties. Knowing European psyche as well as I think I do, it is no wonder that so many conflicts and such flagrant and unashamed acts of violence arose in those early attempts at finding security in such a foreign and hostile land.
Eventually, there evolved a new next stage of negotiating tactics. "Chief" designations began to be assigned to individuals among the new and growing element of Native population who were of half-European and half-Native parentage. These individuals not only knew--from birth--the languages of both the native populations and the Europeans who fathered them but they also knew and understood the European cultural values: of things like money, wealth, hierarchy, written agreements/contracts, or treaties. Though these singular titles and hierarchical assignations were contrary to Native American customs (and, for a time, incomprehensible to the indigents), there were obvious benefits to such titles. These included such things as beneficial trade agreements, money, beads, and other valuables like firearms and alcohol, as well as certain "freedoms" and rights within White society. However, the respect and advantageous treatment and gains acquired by these so-called "chiefs" began to create rifts, divides, within native populations: the cultural privileges offered colonizer-friendly members of a native community created an "us or them" type of partition within the tribes: either you chose to honor and respect the artificially designated "chiefs" and thereby share in the advantages gained by the "treaties" these "special" individuals were given or you distanced your selves from the European populations and either lived in conflict with them or moved West; one remained steadfastly aloof, separate, and, in the end, constantly on the retreat from the web of deceit and lies that the half-breed "chiefs" had allowed themselves to be suckered into.
The divide created within native populations by these weighted associations with White society exist to this day: there are many natives who resist and try to remain separate from the infiltration and imposition of White ways into their world view and values, while there are many who have chosen to surrender to them, or even to work within the White systems (or, better yet, to try to bend White society to their advantages). The harm comes with the internal wars being contested for ascendancy as the values, beliefs, and systems of Western materialism and sovereignty conflict with the nature-based Native honored as central to their core being. No wonder there is so much anger and acting out with violence and destruction (especially self-destructive behaviors) among Native American peoples.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The reason I recently re-titled this blog with the Indian Chiefs lead is to A) perhaps gain more clicks with Google searches and B) as a tongue-in-cheek sample of the misnomers and gross misrepresentation of how indigenous societies were constructed. The deconstruction or "unraveling" of these unjust and horribly inaccurate yet paradigm-building concepts that have become accepted as standards of pedagogy in our nation's dissemination of American history is the core purpose of this blog.
Comments
Post a Comment