Freedom Of Speech,An Iroquoian Tradition

[Gayogoho]

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: Freedom Of Speech,An Iroquoian Tradition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from the Book Mohawk Reporter The Six Nations Columns of George Beaver. Available at Iroqrafts

Before the Ayatollah Khomeini died, there was a great uproar over Salman Rushdie's novel, "Satanic Verses". In this western society we live in, we have grown used to the freedom to question religion, government and pretty well anything else we wished to question.Freedom of speech has become one of our most cherished freedoms, and rightly so.It was and is, a native tradition here in North America.

The idea of freedom of the individual was born here in North America, long before the arrival of the Europeans in 1492. It was not a concept brought over from Europe.

The political theories brought over by Europeans centred on continuing the idea of a monarch, a royal family, a rich gentry, and numerous common folk to do the labor.These were the so-called "lower classes." Thankfully, the more progressive political ideas of the natives of North America, such as the freedom of the individual and freedom of speech, were absorbed and appropriated by the less rigid of the newcomers.

The Constitution of the Five Nations Iroquois Confederacy begins: "We the people...." It could be called the first draft of the U.S. constitution. Some ideas from this Great Law, as the Iroquois called it, are now also enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights.The few freedoms granted by the Magna Carta in England would have been laughed at by most First Nations people.When the Magna Carta was written about 800 years ago, the majority of the native people of North America lived with far greater freedom than did Europeans.This included the women, especially among Iroquoian people.

Because they did not have writing as we know it-- the Great Law was recorded on wampum belts.Every year specially trained people recited the Great Law at a public gathering.In this way many of their unique ideas about government were preserved and remembered. Not all the ideas contained in the Great Law were preserved; some concepts did not survive the translation into English,even though the Confederacy chiefs worked at it for several years in the late 1800's.

Sometimes a single Indian word requires a whole sentence, or even a paragraph, in English. Some concepts cannot be translated at all because the ideas are closely tied to the native culture which is no longer understood by many people.

An example of a simple concept in the native value system is that food must recieve respect.It is what sustains us.It should not be played with or wasted. Thus a student in art class who respects and follows this Iroquoian tradition might be very uncomfortable making play things out of dough or other foods. This is one example of how cultural differences can affect the behaviour. Some people would die for thier principals.Others are more flexible. But who is to say which is right?

_________________

Nya:Weh for your Time

Gayogoho

[Leafless]

What does free speech have to do with the private cultural practices of the Iroquis Confederacy?

[jbg]

What does free speech have to do with the private cultural practices of the Iroquis Confederacy?

Has to do with a romanticisation of pre-Columbian America. Charles C. Mann's excellent book 1491 should debunk a lot of the myths.

[Gayogoho]

What does free speech have to do with the private cultural practices of the Iroquis Confederacy?

Has to do with a romanticisation of pre-Columbian America. Robert Mann's excellent book 1491 should debunk a lot of the myths.

Actually here is a good link that should "debunk" canadian myth

http://www.kahonwes.com/links1/links_misc.htm

Remember we had our own history long before the Europeans recorded it.

[Canuck E Stan]

Another topic without relevance to Federal Politics,

quoted from other sources,

no comment or reason for posting. :angry:

[Canuck E Stan]

FEDERAL POLITICS

Open discussion on any aspect of federal politics in Canada.

[Gayogoho]

Another topic without relevance to Federal Politics,

quoted from other sources,

no comment or reason for posting. :angry:

LOL your federal politics are based on our system of governance which was fully functional 300 years before contact.Your rights and freedoms are taken from our society, or perhaps you would prefer remaining a commoner. If it makes you angry to read about your history than remain ignorant and ignore it.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Relevence. You can't see it so it must not be there, right?

Since I was very young I was taught to ~think~ in Mohawk principles. That means that not only do I have the freedom of speech, but I also can exercise my freedom in thought and in action. I am not bound by any laws or rules. Instead I was taught to be respectful towards all of Creation, including people and to honour and respect my beliefs ...whatever they might be..... I am entitled to express those beliefs without the threat of being shouted down and with an understanding that those who would seek to limit my freedoms were the most limited among you (and in essence require my help the most).

As Canadians you are ~granted~ these rights but often fail to recognize them. Instead you are quick to point out the limitations to those ~grants~ and apply those limitations to others in your favour. It is no wonder that most Canadians are fast asleep where it concerns their own safety, political will or justice. Instead they have become so accustomed to be told what is right, what is just and what is secure that they can no longer do it for themselves. Your leaders perpetuate your voluntary suppression, by creating ~plausible~ myths to which you attach speculation and conspiracy theory. At election time they further confound you by making promises that in the end they will not keep, and even if they did they would have no effect.

When any one of you can think as well as a Mohawk, or any other Iroquois citizen (especially a Mohawk woman!), then you will like us, see that there really is no need for government outside of your own self-governance.....And you might be wise enough to see that everything you come into contact with is ~relevent~ to your continued existence. The fact that you can't is a thinking limitation to whcih you impose your failures on others instead of liberating them together with us.

O:nen

[sharkman]

LOL your federal politics are based on our system of governance which was fully functional 300 years before contact.Your rights and freedoms are taken from our society, or perhaps you would prefer remaining a commoner. If it makes you angry to read about your history than remain ignorant and ignore it.

I'm afraid you are falling prey to liberal thinking, my misguided friend. Changing history so it matches ones wishes is a sad old tradition that liberals have been practicing since their inception. Could be by about 300 years prior to natives(of which I have some heritage) doing the same.

The truth is, whatever your system was, it was no match for those who came over to claim new land. Their superior education and technology rolled over North America. It was inevitible. One must change with the times or get left behind.

[Gayogoho]

LOL your federal politics are based on our system of governance which was fully functional 300 years before contact.Your rights and freedoms are taken from our society, or perhaps you would prefer remaining a commoner. If it makes you angry to read about your history than remain ignorant and ignore it.

I'm afraid you are falling prey to liberal thinking, my misguided friend. Changing history so it matches ones wishes is a sad old tradition that liberals have been practicing since their inception. Could be by about 300 years prior to natives(of which I have some heritage) doing the same.

The truth is, whatever your system was, it was no match for those who came over to claim new land. Their superior education and technology rolled over North America. It was inevitible. One must change with the times or get left behind.

I am not misguided my friend it is you that has been misled.

Changing history so it matches ones wishes is a sad old tradition that liberals have been practicing since their inception.

I do not wish to change history just bring it to light.

The truth is, whatever your system was, it was no match for those who came over to claim new land. Their superior education and technology rolled over North America. It was inevitible. One must change with the times or get left behind.

Those who came over to claim new lands did so by making treaties with our people The Haudenosaunne for with out us you would be a french society. Your superior society was starving and dying in the New world we taught them how to survive.The truth is your system was one of kings and queens without freedom for the common man, by observing the Native population and the way they interacted with each other and the freedom from oppression, your ancestors decided it was a good way to live and tried to break free from the old country.Your system of government is based on ours. And yes you must change with the times as our people have done since forever.If you mean we must assimilate into your society I say you are wrong, our society is much more free than you wish to believe yours is.Our people have survived genocide at the hands of the churchs and governments to stand here today and say we are still here, if that isn't change and adaptation you tell me what is.

You do not know your history and by making statements such as you have above I suggest you quiet down and listen up.Here is some reading material for you, read than come back and discuss from an informed position.

http://www.kahonwes.com/links1/links_misc.htm

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/

http://www.ckrz.com/

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/actionalert/

http://sixnations.buffnet.net/

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/aboriginal-heritage/

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/I-5/index.html

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html

http://www.kanesatake.com/heritage/index.html

some video here

http://reclamationinfo.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=10

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/

http://www.streamreel.com/archives/aim/aim_gentle.htm

Some more video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=38...93889&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...97938&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...14179&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...04716&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...56403&hl=en

[sharkman]

I am not misguided my friend it is you that has been misled.

Changing history so it matches ones wishes is a sad old tradition that liberals have been practicing since their inception.

I do not wish to change history just bring it to light.

The truth is, whatever your system was, it was no match for those who came over to claim new land. Their superior education and technology rolled over North America. It was inevitible. One must change with the times or get left behind.

Those who came over to claim new lands did so by making treaties with our people The Haudenosaunne for with out us you would be a french society. Your superior society was starving and dying in the New world we taught them how to survive.The truth is your system was one of kings and queens without freedom for the common man, by observing the Native population and the way they interacted with each other and the freedom from oppression, your ancestors decided it was a good way to live and tried to break free from the old country.Your system of government is based on ours. And yes you must change with the times as our people have done since forever.If you mean we must assimilate into your society I say you are wrong, our society is much more free than you wish to believe yours is.Our people have survived genocide at the hands of the churchs and governments to stand here today and say we are still here, if that isn't change and adaptation you tell me what is.

You do not know your history and by making statements such as you have above I suggest you quiet down and listen up.Here is some reading material for you, read than come back and discuss from an informed position.

http://www.kahonwes.com/links1/links_misc.htm

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/

http://www.ckrz.com/

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/actionalert/

http://sixnations.buffnet.net/

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/aboriginal-heritage/

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/I-5/index.html

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html

http://www.kanesatake.com/heritage/index.html

some video here

http://reclamationinfo.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=10

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/

http://www.streamreel.com/archives/aim/aim_gentle.htm

Some more video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=38...93889&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...97938&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...14179&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...04716&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...56403&hl=en

Sorry, but I am not interested in mere propaganda. History speaks for itself. All the indian nations could do for their people was no match for what the modern world(at the time) was doing for it's people. The native story is now a mere footnote in history. Embrace today and join society. The past is the past, if you choose to carry it around with you it will be a very heavy burden.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

No doubt another myth maker. Next you'll tell us that you cheap-labour conservatives built Canada and that the unionization of workers was your idea.......

The fact remains, we are still here. After 500 years of attempts at genocide and assimilation we are still a force to be reckoned with. Your government thinks so too and the results of these negotiations over the land reclamtion of the tract will prove just how experienced and knowlegable we are of your miserable imploding society. You can bet that they don't want to negotiate with us but they MUST negotiate with us since we have not only the legal basis, the righteous reasoning and the moral principles held high above the Canadian system, we also outrank you where it concerns Crown law. So the sad fact is that Canada is reluctantly at the table, and starting from a lessor position in this whole issue.

You would be well advised to study history and learn from it (since you are obviously so devoid of it). One fact that you will find over and over again in dealings between the British and the Haudensaunee is that we never negotiate ourselves into a loss. You on the other hand, are in the losing postion from the start because your government leaders could not think far enough into the future. And now that we are holding you to their agreements and declarations, it turns out it doesn't bode well for you.......

And BTW, during this latest rounds of talks it seems that your present leaders cannot think far enough into the future either and I suspect that we will be revisting these claims another 25 or so years from now as you government comes begging back to us for our assistance.....

O:nen

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Did your Mohawk instructions include beating a dead horse? because you sure do a lot of it on these forums.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Nope. I was taught to feed a living horse or else it will die from neglect.

For an example of what happens when you ignore something:

Dead Horse

O:nen

[g_bambino]

Another topic without relevance to Federal Politics,

quoted from other sources,

no comment or reason for posting. :angry:

LOL your federal politics are based on our system of governance which was fully functional 300 years before contact.Your rights and freedoms are taken from our society, or perhaps you would prefer remaining a commoner. If it makes you angry to read about your history than remain ignorant and ignore it.

I didn't realise the Natives had a monarch, elected parliamentarians, or appointed senators. Also, I was pretty sure our rights and freedoms are based on the British tradition - it was they who wrote the Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1689), not North American First Nations.

I think I'll stick with the commonly held story, though - it seems a lot more plausable than the idea that Native Canadians were somehow the originators of civil liberty and it was actually their discovery by Europeans that was the key to bringing Britain and the rest of the continent out of some kind of oppressive dark age ruled by tyrants.

[Gayogoho]

If it makes you angry to read about your history than remain ignorant and ignore it.

[mister_v]

She:kon!

My country!

O:nen

Great link Tsi! The banner image is fantastic! Shows a taste of the great nation of Canada from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea, internationally recognized and internationally admired. We're so admired that people from around the world want to come here to live and become Canadians. Their children become natives too, just like you and me! How does it feel to be Canadian Tsi?

Send that link to all your friends. And kudos Tsi, for once you did the right thing.

[jbg]

What does free speech have to do with the private cultural practices of the Iroquis Confederacy?

Has to do with a romanticisation of pre-Columbian America. Robert Mann's excellent book 1491 should debunk a lot of the myths.

Actually here is a good link that should "debunk" canadian myth

http://www.kahonwes.com/links1/links_misc.htm

Remember we had our own history long before the Europeans recorded it.

Which of the forest of links contained in that one should I focus on? I'm interested in the subject, but maybe want to do 45 minutes or so of reading on the first tranche.

[jbg]

Sorry, but I am not interested in mere propaganda. History speaks for itself. All the indian nations could do for their people was no match for what the modern world(at the time) was doing for it's people. The native story is now a mere footnote in history. Embrace today and join society. The past is the past, if you choose to carry it around with you it will be a very heavy burden.

My view on this is somewhat mixed. According to Charles Mann's excellent recent book 1491 the natives populated North America quite thickly, and in some cases built major cities. In some cases they matched or exceeded what people on Europe/Asia/Africa were doing.

Unfortunately, none of this was any match for smallpox. Far from their being deliberate genocide, smallpox raced out far ahead of the initial explorers. The pre-decimation of the population made the European advance much easier, since the societies upon which they were advancing, already facing population losses ranging anywhere from 50% to 95% were disorganized and thoroughly demoralized by the various epidemics that spread through the land.

This view makes sense inasmuch as Europeans never made much of a dent in Africa (except South Africa), or Asia, but basically wiped the slate clean in Australia, New Zealand and the Americas.

[Gayogoho]

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html

try this one to start

[B. Max]

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: Freedom Of Speech,An Iroquoian Tradition

The idea of freedom of the individual was born here in North America, long before the arrival of the Europeans in 1492. It was not a concept brought over from Europe.

The white man can definitely be put in north America as early as the European bronze age. This is a proven fact from the great lakes copper mines and the quality of European bronze age copper. The quality of that bronze was not achievable at that time from their refining technology using European copper. The source of that copper has been traced to the great lakes mines.

The concept of individual rights in England dates back to at least the Magna Carta when it was put to paper in 1215. The process to wrestle power away from the king began a hundred years before that. Jefferson, and others with a classical education of the times were not stubble bums who had no concept of individual rights. For four hundred years after Magna Carta the king and parliament often argued over supreme power. The king claiming an inherent right from god to be the ultimate power in decision making. Arguments which eventually led to a civil war.

Jefferson, who wrote the declaration of independence turned that around to say that all men were endowed with certain unalienable rights from their creator. Stating that certain rights were not granted by man or government but that they could only be, recognized by government. That which can be granted by man can be taken away. Thus the concept of positive and negative rights. That which is endowed by the creator can not be taken away but can be trampled on by government. The idea that all this was invented by the Indians is ridiculous in the extreme, and as ridiculous as the notion that the Indians created American democracy. The united states is a republic not a democracy. Democracy is a subject term, republic is not.

The so called great Indian law really resembles neither of these concepts but looks more like communism. A proven system of failure that has been thrown on histories trash heap time after time. Only a true system of individual rights and freedoms can produce innovation through creativity which has led to the technological society we have today. Something that would never have happened under the Indian system. From this alone, one must conclude that the Indians had no concept of basic individual rights. Let alone that those rights must be vested and placed in a higher power for safe keeping.

The atheist communists understand that very well. Which is why they work so hard to remove god from society. Once removed those rights soon follow. The first amendment to the US constitution and its miss representation as the separation clause is a good example of that endeavor. By that interpretation and the fact that tyrants never sleep they seek to separate man from his god and replace god with government. Even a world government, such as the UN. Often using the phrase freedom from religion, but only to be slave in the their new world order. An order where government hands out special collective rights like candy. As is evident in the canadian charter of wrongs and special rights.

[jbg]

Nominally, the Indians may have had systems that superficially resembled England's nascent democracies. Convergences of that variety are highly likely, since people, by nature, when gathering in a small group will tend to "choose a leader". Many other systems, such as Chinese Confucianism depended to some extent on consensus. This does not mean they are linear ancestors of the democracies being built in England in fits and starts. That would be like saying that Indian democracy, or for that matter English democracy, descended for the Althing assembly in Iceland, which started in the 900's and is, by some measures, the oldest more or less continually functioning legislative body in the world.

I think both the "Indians as democrats" and "Indians as Communists" school overstate their cases. Remember, even the most rigid Communists have the exercise of mock "elections" with 99% approvals for the rulers. Heck, Saddam even got 100%.

[B. Max]

Nominally, the Indians may have had systems that superficially resembled England's nascent democracies. Convergences of that variety are highly likely, since people, by nature, when gathering in a small group will tend to "choose a leader". Many other systems, such as Chinese Confucianism depended to some extent on consensus. This does not mean they are linear ancestors of the democracies being built in England in fits and starts.

I think both the "Indians as democrats" and "Indians as Communists" school overstate their cases. Remember, even the most rigid Communists have the exercise of mock "elections" with 99% approvals for the rulers. Heck, Saddam even got 100%.

But that which you are saying is a far cry from saying the stupid " read between the lines " white man had no concept of individual rights. The history of the second amendment reads like a journey into individual rights dating back just before 1000 BC. I personally will not let them separate historical fact from the text.

[jbg]

But that which you are saying is a far cry from saying the stupid " read between the lines " white man had no concept of individual rights. The history of the second amendment reads like a journey into individual rights dating back just before 1000 BC. I personally will not let them separate historical fact from the text.

Agreed. I tend not to take extreme positions on most issues, except the UN and the War of Civilizations.

[B. Max]

But that which you are saying is a far cry from saying the stupid " read between the lines " white man had no concept of individual rights. The history of the second amendment reads like a journey into individual rights dating back just before 1000 BC. I personally will not let them separate historical fact from the text.

Agreed. I tend not to take extreme positions on most issues, except the UN and the War of Civilizations.

Extreme postions depends on who controls the goal posts, but i need to make a correction. I said BC in an above post. That should be AD.