Should Mohawk Warriors Be Accorded Respect

[Rue]

These posts continue to illicit responses from people who assume they understand what an aboriginal warrior is.

I would respectfully suggest some of you responding may be relying on the concept of warrior they saw on television.

If you are genuinely interested in the aboriginal concept of warrior may I respectfully suggest you consider the following essay; Warrior Societies in Contemporary Indigenous Communities by Taiaiake Alfred, Ph.D. and Lana Lowe, M.A.

The essay can be found at;

http://ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_part/res...ed_and_Lowe.pdf

Here are some excerpts;

“Contrary to the militaristic and soldierly associations of the term in European languages—and in common usage—the words translated from indigenous languages as “warrior” generally have deep and spiritual meaning. This deeper sense is exemplified, to use one example, in the English-Kanien’kehaka translation, rotiskenhrakete, which literally means, “carrying the burden of peace.” The construction of the word is an indicator of the philosophical framework for understanding the role of the warrior within traditional indigenous cultures. The word is made up of roti, connoting “he”; sken in relation to skennen, or “peace”; and hrakete, which is a suffix that combines the connotations of a burden and carrying. ”

“There are many related words at the core of traditional indigenous cultures that, due to the relative simplicity and limitations of the English language, can only be translated using the single term “warrior.” In fact, the single English term has multiple connotations and a much broader usage in indigenous languages and in the traditional cultural life of indigenous societies. ”

“There is in fact great consistency in indigenous cultures on the idea of the warrior. What follows are a few illustrative examples from among the many different indigenous cultures:6

• Kuna (Central America): napa-sapgued, “one who protects or guards the land, or nature.”

• Dakota (Plains): akicita refers to those who have engaged in war combat, though linguistically the word is related to akita, which means “to seek.”

• Wsanec (West Coast): stomish means those who protect the territory and defend the names with honour and discipline.

• Pawnee (Plains): heluska, “the warrior, the war dance, the war, battle, struggle.”

The Pawnee saying tu-da-he, as explained by a Pawnee language teacher, beautifully exemplifies the traditional indigenous idea of being a warrior:

Tu-da-he, “the war, the battle, the struggle is good, sacred, right.” Life and the everyday struggles of living, good or bad, is the epitome of life. It is how you know you are living. Nothing is easy, and because it isn’t easy, one should truly value the blessings. In a warrior society the warrior ideal is how life is lived. It is what you do, it is who you are—you fight. Defeat is painful, but it is only temporary because you still live to get yourself up and see the dawn. ”

“Since the warrior society first pierced Canadian consciousness in the 1970s, the indigenous warrior has been characterized as both the Noble Savage—“a heroic champion of native rights ready to die for the cause”—and the bloodthirsty renegade—a “testosterone-driven gun junkie out to die in a blaze of glory.”17 Falling back on hackneyed stereotypes and one-dimensional portrayals of indigenous existence, the Canadian media, governments, and citizenry invariably cast indigenous warriors, whether heroes or tyrants, as misguided and irrational malcontents who have taken Canadian law into their own hands.”

[Rue]

No I don't think the Mohawk Warriors should be accorded respect, they are to militant. When the Natives held a peaceful day of protest it garnered more attention and respect than the violence. It's time for the government to stop dragging it's feet and start negotiating in good faith with the natives. Settle the treaties and the natives need to learn to move forward. There is so much corruption from the band/reservation level up the chain of command. Canadian's want a complete audit on where the money is going. Natives living in third world conditions is shameful, but who should be wearing the cloak of shame is my question to Harper? I've yet to see any PM attempt to address the issue of corruption, why is that? If any other ethnic block were living in third world conditions the politicians from left and right and commies would be screaming blue murder. Why is the native's issues dealt with with silence?

Sadly no matter what forum I read when Native Issues are discussed the racism and lack of knowledge about Natives is staggering.

I found your comments very interesting. I made it a point to respond with another post containing excerpts of an essay on the concept of warrior in aboriginal culture because I just get the feeling for most people responding they assume it means someone violent.

Now your comments are interesting because elders and aboriginals kind enough to let me learn from them when they have discussed the concept with me provide a very fluid notion and I think many of them have tried to explain to me that asserting rights requires many tactics or methods but certainly physical violence is not something I was shown as the way to resolve conflict-what I was shown was that physical confrontation when it does happen is a last resort and seen as a defensive response not something one necessarily initiates.

Its a complicated concept and just because some refer to themselves as warriors or live in a warrior society doesn't mean they have developed spiritually to the level of a true warrior yet. Many are only learning.

Some warriors of course make bad mistakes because they lose their temper but they do not necessarily reflect what a warrior is intended to be any more then a police officer who engage sin brutality represents what he was taught to be as a police officer.

I criticize any act of violence. I do think in some cases some Mohawk Warriors or some young aboriginals have lost it. But if you are asking me to lump them all into one negative category I can't because the people we are talking about do not reflect either the warrior society or the wide range of spiritual beliefs of the aboriginal peoples that can not be simplified with John Wayne stereotypes.

I share the concern of many of their people and band leaders in feeling more physical restraint can be shown during confrontations. That however for me is a different issue then the concept of the decision to for example assert their rights by seizing land.

To me the seizing of land is a warrior concept that comes from feeling there is no other way and if they do not do this it will literally lead to their demise. That may seem militant to someone who takes their rights for granted and then feels others are trying to take them away but to me it is a decision that has flown from a repeated series of treaty breaches by our provincial and federal governments and a repeated violation of our constitutional conventions and unwritten constitutional principles that recognize the aborigininal peoples as a nation of nations that has a collective identity and rights flowing from that collective indentity.

This has also since 1982 been written into our constitutional law in the Constitution Act of 1982 and repeatedely recopgnized by our Supreme Court of Canada and yet in practice on the ground, our governments have chosen to break it and ignore it and this has caused some aboriginal peoples to believe they must adapt a warrior concept in their approach to trying to resolve these issues.

The warrior concept does not mean they are going to kill people and be violent. It means they are going to asset themselves rather than sit and do nothing.

That doing something is a form of political resistance. It is not a form of resistance that attacks our children or our vulnerable people nor does it randomly try frighten and hurt civilians.

It is specifically controlled to a specific land area and it is about asserting control over land.

If you do not physically fight them, they will occupy the land and sit until the legal courts and the proper representatives from both sides come to agreement.

Warriors are about asserting land control, no more no less. They are not interested in hurting you or anyone else if they can help it.

They will not use violence on you. This notion they go around looking for people and beating them is b.s.

You and I do not know what happened with that man who was seriously injured.

It is highly possible he made racial comments before he was beaten or did something first which then triggered the response.

Does that justify the response, probably not. I am not here to justify violence of any kind. Any violence by either side to me is not the way to do it. There I totally agree with you.

All I am trying to do though is explain that I prefer people like you who when they criticize-are clear they criticize the violence but they understand the context behind the conflict. Your concern they do not use violence is based on your enlightenment not hatred. I applaud that.

[Posit]

The Mohawk word is "wasase" and they are based on resistance not on offense.

[kengs333]

These posts continue to illicit responses from people who assume they understand what an aboriginal warrior is.

I would respectfully suggest some of you responding may be relying on the concept of warrior they saw on television.

If you are genuinely interested in the aboriginal concept of warrior may I respectfully suggest you consider the following essay; Warrior Societies in Contemporary Indigenous Communities by Taiaiake Alfred, Ph.D. and Lana Lowe, M.A.

The essay can be found at;

http://ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_part/res...ed_and_Lowe.pdf

Here are some excerpts;

“Contrary to the militaristic and soldierly associations of the term in European languages—and in common usage—the words translated from indigenous languages as “warrior” generally have deep and spiritual meaning. This deeper sense is exemplified, to use one example, in the English-Kanien’kehaka translation, rotiskenhrakete, which literally means, “carrying the burden of peace.” The construction of the word is an indicator of the philosophical framework for understanding the role of the warrior within traditional indigenous cultures. The word is made up of roti, connoting “he”; sken in relation to skennen, or “peace”; and hrakete, which is a suffix that combines the connotations of a burden and carrying. ”

“There are many related words at the core of traditional indigenous cultures that, due to the relative simplicity and limitations of the English language, can only be translated using the single term “warrior.” In fact, the single English term has multiple connotations and a much broader usage in indigenous languages and in the traditional cultural life of indigenous societies. ”

“There is in fact great consistency in indigenous cultures on the idea of the warrior. What follows are a few illustrative examples from among the many different indigenous cultures:6

• Kuna (Central America): napa-sapgued, “one who protects or guards the land, or nature.”

• Dakota (Plains): akicita refers to those who have engaged in war combat, though linguistically the word is related to akita, which means “to seek.”

• Wsanec (West Coast): stomish means those who protect the territory and defend the names with honour and discipline.

• Pawnee (Plains): heluska, “the warrior, the war dance, the war, battle, struggle.”

The Pawnee saying tu-da-he, as explained by a Pawnee language teacher, beautifully exemplifies the traditional indigenous idea of being a warrior:

Tu-da-he, “the war, the battle, the struggle is good, sacred, right.” Life and the everyday struggles of living, good or bad, is the epitome of life. It is how you know you are living. Nothing is easy, and because it isn’t easy, one should truly value the blessings. In a warrior society the warrior ideal is how life is lived. It is what you do, it is who you are—you fight. Defeat is painful, but it is only temporary because you still live to get yourself up and see the dawn. ”

“Since the warrior society first pierced Canadian consciousness in the 1970s, the indigenous warrior has been characterized as both the Noble Savage—“a heroic champion of native rights ready to die for the cause”—and the bloodthirsty renegade—a “testosterone-driven gun junkie out to die in a blaze of glory.”17 Falling back on hackneyed stereotypes and one-dimensional portrayals of indigenous existence, the Canadian media, governments, and citizenry invariably cast indigenous warriors, whether heroes or tyrants, as misguided and irrational malcontents who have taken Canadian law into their own hands.”

Why is it that the English translation always seems to somehow misrepresent the supposedly "true" meaning of certain Indian words? It seems to me that this is just all part of the revisionism that's going on nowadays as certain people are trying to establish this notion that Indians were somehow peaceful, non-aggressive people before contact with Europe. The fact of the matter is that Indians of all "nations" engaged in war, they engaged in activities that we would consider to be murder, kidnap, and grand theft auto (horse stealing) as part of their "culture".

[Posit]

Why is it that the English translation always seems to somehow misrepresent the supposedly "true" meaning of certain Indian words? It seems to me that this is just all part of the revisionism that's going on nowadays as certain people are trying to establish this notion that Indians were somehow peaceful, non-aggressive people before contact with Europe. The fact of the matter is that Indians of all "nations" engaged in war, they engaged in activities that we would consider to be murder, kidnap, and grand theft auto (horse stealing) as part of their "culture".

Iroquoian languages are verb-based while ours is noun-based. Their verbs are modified by adding prefixes and suffices to modify "who" is doing "what" action. Despite your ignorance telling you so, there are few direct translations between English and any Iroquoian languages. That creates a huge problem when trying to communicate, if if both sides are talking about the same things.

The fact of the matter is that Indians of all "nations" engaged in war, they engaged in activities that we would consider to be murder, kidnap, and grand theft auto (horse stealing) as part of their "culture".

You really are an laughable ignorunt with this one.

[kengs333]

Iroquoian languages are verb-based while ours is noun-based. Their verbs are modified by adding prefixes and suffices to modify "who" is doing "what" action. Despite your ignorance telling you so, there are few direct translations between English and any Iroquoian languages. That creates a huge problem when trying to communicate, if if both sides are talking about the same things.

I personally have never seen any attempt to bring any attention to the fact that the word is being "incorrectly translated". And as we all know, these people have been quite vocal in drawing attention to all of their beefs. So one has to assume that they have no problem with letting others interpret the word as "warriors" as English-speakers understand the word.

But let's be serious here, it doesn't matter what they call themselves; we've all seen what they truly are. As the saying goes: a horse by any other name is still a horse.

You really are an laughable ignorunt [sic] with this one.

What the point of even bothering to type this if you can't provide any evidence to refute it. Well, we've seen the kind of nonsense you provide as "evidence"... so I guess it doesn't make a whole lot of difference anyway.

[Posit]

I personally have never seen any attempt to bring any attention to the fact that the word is being "incorrectly translated". And as we all know, these people have been quite vocal in drawing attention to all of their beefs. So one has to assume that they have no problem with letting others interpret the word as "warriors" as English-speakers understand the word.

But let's be serious here, it doesn't matter what they call themselves; we've all seen what they truly are. As the saying goes: a horse by any other name is still a horse.

What the point of even bothering to type this if you can't provide any evidence to refute it. Well, we've seen the kind of nonsense you provide as "evidence"... so I guess it doesn't make a whole lot of difference anyway.

THEY don't call themselves "warriors". That's what we and the media call them. However they refer to themselves a Rotiskenhrekehte, explained earlier. And the people that make up the Rotiskenhrekehte are ordinary men and women who have risen up in their communities to defend their nations.

As to your other stupid statements, they are not worth my time responding to. You truly have an igno"runt" mentality. That wasn't a spelling error it was a descriptive word play that every one buyt you seemed to get.

[Moxie]

Canada belongs to all Canadians Postit, it's not their nation anymore. We won and they signed treaties that the Feds seem hell bend on not honouring.

[ScottSA]

As to your other stupid statements, they are not worth my time responding to. You truly have an igno"runt" mentality. That wasn't a spelling error it was a descriptive word play that every one buyt you seemed to get.

I didn't get it. Anymore than I get "buyt." Is that a wordplay too? By the way, "every one" is spelled "everyone." Just so's you know. I suppose that was a wordplay too, though, eh?

[jennie]

Canada belongs to all Canadians Postit, it's not their nation anymore. We won and they signed treaties that the Feds seem hell bend on not honouring.

We did not "win" anything. Show me references that say Canada or Britain "won" a war with Indigenous Peoples. You won't find any because there were no 'Indian Wars' in Canada, only in the US.

We did not "win" and then make treaties. We only made treaties ... peace and friendship treaties.

The treaties allowed us to settle in certain areas, but the treaties never ceded ownership of any land nor did they include any 'surrender' by Indigenous Peoples, who remains sovereign as they were before contact, and retain jurisdiction over the land. They have not exercised jurisdiction until recently but they have every right to do so, especially now as we have grown well past the limits of the treaties and we are infringing directly on their territories now.

It is very disturbing how many Canadians have the mistaken impression that we somehow 'beat the Indians' and 'won a war' for Canada. That is bs, and it is VERY distressing that our schools don't do a better job of teaching the truth. It simply is not the truth.

[ScottSA]

We did not "win" anything. Show me references that say Canada or Britain "won" a war with Indigenous Peoples. You won't find any because there were no 'Indian Wars' in Canada, only in the US.

We did not "win" and then make treaties. We only made treaties ... peace and friendship treaties.

The treaties allowed us to settle in certain areas, but the treaties never ceded ownership of any land nor did they include any 'surrender' by Indigenous Peoples, who remains sovereign as they were before contact, and retain jurisdiction over the land. They have not exercised jurisdiction until recently but they have every right to do so, especially now as we have grown well past the limits of the treaties and we are infringing directly on their territories now.

It is very disturbing how many Canadians have the mistaken impression that we somehow 'beat the Indians' and 'won a war' for Canada. That is bs, and it is VERY distressing that our schools don't do a better job of teaching the truth. It simply is not the truth.

Oh well, so sad. That was 200 years ago and most of the treaties have been settled to the letter long ago. Move on. Get jobs.

[Posit]

Oh well, so sad. That was 200 years ago and most of the treaties have been settled to the letter long ago. Move on. Get jobs.

Umm....the treaties end with a note that the agreements will "run as long as the sun shall shine, as long as the grass grows green at certain times of the year, and as long as the rivers flow".

The treaties, the Royal Proclamation and aboriginal right is alive and valid today.

Get a real job you bum. I know you are limited to certain jobs because of an intellectual anomoly, but certain working at a McJob is really nothing to be proud of.

[kengs333]

THEY don't call themselves "warriors". That's what we and the media call them. However they refer to themselves a Rotiskenhrekehte, explained earlier. And the people that make up the Rotiskenhrekehte are ordinary men and women who have risen up in their communities to defend their nations.

As to your other stupid statements, they are not worth my time responding to. You truly have an igno"runt" mentality. That wasn't a spelling error it was a descriptive word play that every one buyt you seemed to get.

Are these or are these not official statements made by "Rotiskenhrekehte"?

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/1499

http://www.autochtones.ca/portal/en/Articl...p?article_id=41

[Posit]

Are these or are these not official statements made by "Rotiskenhrekehte"?

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/1499

http://www.autochtones.ca/portal/en/Articl...p?article_id=41

West Coast Warrior Society? You have a problem with geography.

The Mohawk Warrior Society, are not the ones manning the front lines of Caledonia or Tyendinaga. They are Rotiskenhrekehte, not Warrior Society members.

Maybe you should invest in a map. You don't seem to understand that native people in BC are not the same as Six Nations.

[Borg]

Umm....the treaties end with a note that the agreements will "run as long as the sun shall shine, as long as the grass grows green at certain times of the year, and as long as the rivers flow".

The treaties, the Royal Proclamation and aboriginal right is alive and valid today.

Get a real job you bum. I know you are limited to certain jobs because of an intellectual anomoly, but certain working at a McJob is really nothing to be proud of.

Unless you can prove the treaties end as you state - and I bet you cannot - then treaties are a one time deal.

So show me that specific scribing on ALL those treaties please - or stand down on what I believe to be the BS factor. In fact I do not believe that those words are written on any treaty created between the winners and the losers in Canada.

Borg

Edited October 1, 2007 by Borg

[kengs333]

West Coast Warrior Society? You have a problem with geography.

The Mohawk Warrior Society, are not the ones manning the front lines of Caledonia or Tyendinaga. They are Rotiskenhrekehte, not Warrior Society members.

Maybe you should invest in a map. You don't seem to understand that native people in BC are not the same as Six Nations.

Are you still here? Damn.

I'm fully aware of where these organizations are from. You stated that "Warrior Society" is a term that non-Indians use, but here we have Indians using the term "warrior" in reference to themselves. I'm sure you'll just make excuses for why the "Rotiskenhrekehte" are not the same as other "warrior societies" elsewhere, but of course you won't be fooling anyone but yourself.

[kengs333]

Unless you can prove the treaties end as you state - and I bet you cannot - then treaties are a one time deal.

So show me that specific scribing on ALL those treaties please - or stand down on what I believe to be the BS factor. In fact I do not believe that those words are written on any treaty created between the winners and the losers in Canada.

Borg

It's interesting how anything written by "whitey" that appears to be to their benefit is etched in stone, yet if it doesn't then it's just a bunch of biased, racist lies. The fact of the matter is that the Five/Six Nations considered themselves to be a "nation" and entered into agreements as such, and if they made deals or treaties that have turned out not to their advantage, too bad.

[Borg]

It's interesting how anything written by "whitey" that appears to be to their benefit is etched in stone, yet if it doesn't then it's just a bunch of biased, racist lies. The fact of the matter is that the Five/Six Nations considered themselves to be a "nation" and entered into agreements as such, and if they made deals or treaties that have turned out not to their advantage, too bad.

Here we go - I asked someone to prove their statement becasue I believe what was stated was untrue,

You called me whitey. How do you know? Who is the racist here?

I know nothing of your ancestry and anything you say can be a lie anyways.

Bottom line - I am tired of the "rivers flow" bullshit. It was never written into a treaty to my knowledge - north OR south of the border. So - stop using it.

Those nations you mention fought like cats and dogs - conspired to wipe each other out. Friends and family they were not.

So it seems you too are turning fabricated history to your advantage.

Stop the whining and show me the proof.

Those deals may not be changing much in the future - and perhaps it is time for the indian to get off his duff and show the world he really can be a productive part of the world society. Turning the general public against your cause will simply ensure you stay where you are in life.

Gotta' love that.

Do not like what I just wrote? You probably blame "whitey" for the corruption that runs rampant on many, many resrves. Ever look in the mirror?

Finally - prove the "rivers run" statement and I will make nice - otherwise lets stop the talk of lies.

Borg

Edited October 1, 2007 by Borg

[jennie]

most of the treaties have been settled to the letter long ago

-link- ?

[kengs333]

Here we go - I asked someone to prove their statement becasue I believe what was stated was untrue,

You called me whitey. How do you know? Who is the racist here?

I know nothing of your ancestry and anything you say can be a lie anyways.

Bottom line - I am tired of the "rivers flow" bullshit. It was never written into a treaty to my knowledge - north OR south of the border. So - stop using it.

Those nations you mention fought like cats and dogs - conspired to wipe each other out. Friends and family they were not.

So it seems you too are turning fabricated history to your advantage.

Stop the whining and show me the proof.

Those deals may not be changing much in the future - and perhaps it is time for the indian to get off his duff and show the world he really can be a productive part of the world society. Turning the general public against your cause will simply ensure you stay where you are in life.

Gotta' love that.

Do not like what I just wrote? You probably blame "whitey" for the corruption that runs rampant on many, many resrves. Ever look in the mirror?

Finally - prove the "rivers run" statement and I will make nice - otherwise lets stop the talk of lies.

Borg

Maybe it's not written as clearly as it could, but 'anything written by "whitey" that appears to be to their benefit is etched in stone' is intended to mean that Six Nations always considers the writing in treaties to be "etched in stone" if it's to their benefit, but if it turns out "whitey" comes out better, then the treaty is always invalid somehow.

[Borg]

Maybe it's not written as clearly as it could, but 'anything written by "whitey" that appears to be to their benefit is etched in stone' is intended to mean that Six Nations always considers the writing in treaties to be "etched in stone" if it's to their benefit, but if it turns out "whitey" comes out better, then the treaty is always invalid somehow.

Dodge, divert, name call and then complain.

You are simply proving my point.

But, it would be good if for once you would admit to being in the wrong with a claim. So, where is it written? I ask you to please show us all.

You show yet another reason to show why the indian will never rise to full potential - the pot is only capable of calling the kettle names. You have no one to blame but yourself - advantages are there for you to grab hold of - but you do not.

There are better ways and many have found them. There are those who have found a way to rise out of the quagmire of self pity. By alienating your once strong ally, the Canadian public, you have simply made things worse instead of better.

Perhaps with time you will as well. One can only hope.

Borg

Edited October 2, 2007 by Borg

[ScottSA]

Dodge, divert, name call and then complain.

You are simply proving my point.

But, it would be good if for once you would admit to being in the wrong with a claim. So, where is it written? I ask you to please show us all.

You show yet another reason to show why the indian will never rise to full potential - the pot is only capable of calling the kettle names. You have no one to blame but yourself - advantages are there for you to grab hold of - but you do not.

There are better ways and many have found them. There are those who have found a way to rise out of the quagmire of self pity. By alienating your once strong ally, the Canadian public, you have simply made things worse instead of better.

Perhaps with time you will as well. One can only hope.

Borg

Borg, I think you're misinterpreting what Keng is saying. His point was that the Indians have a double standard: If a treaty is to their benefit, they consider it etched in stone, and if a treaty turns out not to have been to their benefit, they man the barracades at the "injustice" of it all. He's saying the Indians have a double standard, and he's absolutely right.

[jennie]

Oh well, so sad. That was 200 years ago and most of the treaties have been settled to the letter long ago. Move on. Get jobs.

ScottSA your credibility in this thread challenged, as you have not provided evidence to support this statement that the treaties have been settled. This is a gross error of fact, imo, and I think you'd better clarify for the readers.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA your credibility in this thread challenged, as you have not provided evidence to support this statement that the treaties have been settled. This is a gross error of fact, imo, and I think you'd better clarify for the readers.

Sure, but first, could you please rewrite your post so that it makes a modicum of sense?

[jennie]

Sure, but first, could you please rewrite your post so that it makes a modicum of sense?

your credibility IS hereby challenged.