Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
University of Denver
1
CHAPTER I
John Locke, empiricist, physician, philosopher and political theorist, may not
live on forever in men's memories, but throughout history will certainly be
create. While his political and social philosophy is the very mortar of today's
republican societies, his "labor theory of value" was a convincing weapon against
the idle Aristocracy ruling 17th Century Europe. He was the first political theorist
to argue for the right of revolution if government usurps its duties to its citizenry.
His arguments were, in and of themselves, revolutionary and insightful for his
time.
John Locke had a radical new idea to offer peoples everywhere. In a time
where "Divine Right of Kings" was the traditional way of ruling societies, and
where a propertied Aristocracy controlled virtually all territory while landless
peasants worked for bare subsistence, Locke argued that those who work the land
deserve its bounty -- not absentee or idle landowners. For Locke argues that
ownership of land can be had only via one's labor -- never one's position in
society.
Further, along with Thomas Hobbes, Locke argued that societies were formed
and legitimate only on the basis of popular consent. Both men argued that a kind
2
of "social contract" was formed among men, in order to secure their liberty. This,
they argue, was the true origin of society. Therefore it is also the true origin of
power: consent of the people, not divine mandate! The implications of these ideas
were to be enormous.
Where Locke is held dear is in the conclusion he draws from the above
the citizenry had the right to change the government if power is usurped by those
entrusted to govern. Locke, in effect, was the first theoretician to argue for the
unequivocal right of revolution by the people if those in a position of power
abused it. This argument was in and of itself revolutionary in 17th century
England -- so much so that Locke spent years of his life exiled from the land
where he was born, to the only liberal bastion of the time, the Netherlands. The
Two Treatises originally was considered such a seditious document that even after
Locke finished his exile and returned to England, he would deny almost to his
death his authorship of the work. Dunn elaborates, "Locke remained, however, not
merely unwilling to disclose his authorship of the . . . Two Treatises, but more
Today, all representative democracies owe Locke a great debt. Lauded as the
democracy, individual liberty and a free-market economic system as the basis for
3
their view of life, to articulate their aspirations and justify their
deeds. No philosopher has exercised a greater influence. . . .
(Cranston, 1961, pp. 7).
theories of the former millennia: "the labor theory of value". A scorching blow to
an idle Aristocracy that controlled all land, this theory was so diverse that its
individuals vis-à-vis one's labor, was a foundation for Karl Marx's justification of
worker-owned industry and communal property. The impact of the "labor theory
of value" on today's economic systems has been enormous. Yolton argues, ". . .
pp. 188).
Interestingly enough, there was another group whose political system, one of
United States, and whose communal economic system, at the same time, also
provided a working model for the "founders" of communism, Karl Marx and
Fredrick Engels.
were few examples of existing democratic states to be used as models for the
European states controlled the majority of the southern hemisphere in this age of
The Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy consisted of the original five nations: the
Mohawk, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senecas, and in the 1700s were
joined by the Tuscaroras who migrated north from the Carolinas. Initially the
community of five bands resided in the vicinity of what is now Montreal, Canada,
and somewhere over 500 years ago migrated to the central New York area.
Around 1450, a man named Deganawidah, the "Great Peacemaker", came to the
Nations and offered them a radical new idea: of forming a League of Five
(Wallace, pp. xv.). Their participatory democratic system was one of the first to
The Oglala Lakota people of the great plains are the second indigenous group
this work focuses on. The Lakota people consisted of seven bands: the Oglala,
Brule, Sisseton, Minneconjou, Black Feet, Hunkpapa and Yankton, and identified
themselves as the people of the "Seven Council Fires". Initially living in the
woods of Minnesota, they were pushed westward in an early attempt to escape the
encroaching European and other indigenous tribes similarly migrating. The first
time they are mentioned by Europeans was as late as 1640 (Walker, 1982, pp. 11).
They found a homeland on the plains of the midwest, and came to call the Black
Hills of South Dakota the nation's cosmological birthplace. Today the bands are
scattered on reservation lands throughout South Dakota. The Oglala Lakota, the
main source for this work, live mainly on the Pine Ridge Reservation, an
Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine all visited and/or studied the Six Iroquois
democracy. The Six Nations "Wampam Belt", a beaded declaration of the uniting
of the Confederacy and the embodiment of the Six Nation's constitution, served as
contributes according to his ability, and receives according to his needs. Engles
work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.
effect on the development of world political systems. The two have a further
appropriate "private" property, when the world was "given by God to men in
common", according to his biblical beliefs. The majority of his examples and
no species at all: it belongs to the Creator; all life were to share in its bounty
equally. Human beings had a special responsibility as rational creatures to care for
the Earth so that she may continue to give life to all generations to come.
concept: it was like attempting to own the air that one breathes; the sky above; or
the water in the rivers, oceans and seas. While individual Nations claimed
particular territories, but human life was believed to be too fragile and fleeting to
proclaim itself as owner of the complex system called Mother Earth. Mankind's
status, rather, is a humble one, as caretaker of the Earth, its steward and guarantor
of continued health for the generations of all life to come. Human beings, as a
rational species, have a special responsibility to the rest of Creation: to sustain the
Earth so that she may continue to give life to all of the unborn generations.
Mankind cannot "own" the Earth; rather it is borrowed from the future
generations.
philosophy, was dramatically different from that of John Locke's. The structure of
their society was based on active, participatory democracy; absolute liberty of the
individual; and a communal system of material goods and land tenure that left no
person hungry, and none without the material necessities of life (as long as those
necessities were available at all). Those things that were life-sustaining: such as
food, water, shelter, clothing and warmth, were considered communal goods.
None should go hungry while others were well-fed, as in the belief structure of
7
indigenous Americans, all living things were to share Mother Earth's bounty
equally.
John Locke could not be more fundamentally opposed to one another. For Locke,
conceptually, physical existence was based on the biblical idea of the world as a
hierarchy, with mankind at the top, and all other life forms below. The Earth and
all her bounty was given to man for his use, for his needs, while all other creatures
literally, all parts of Creation held an equal and necessary place relative to one
another -- and none stood alone inside the center. The Earth belongs only to the
Creator himself, while her bounty belongs to all. All things stand equal in the
circle of life because all things are related and necessary to each other and to the
whole. As modern man is learning, one part of the circle cannot be destroyed
Hence, all things on Earth, below and above, deserve respect, as all living and
beings, born of Mother Earth, enjoy the same right to preservation as do animate
beings -- for the granite mountain top, the thunderstorm, the rivers, the seas, and
the two indigenous societies led to distinct political, social and economic theories
two Native American societies -- the Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) and Oglala
Lakota (Sioux), and compare and contrast them with those of John Locke. Further,
the social systems that develop from these philosophical foundations are acutely
8
distinct, and in a time of newly developing democratization in the international
arena, both call for intensive re-examination. For as long as the world believes,
communal economic system insuring that all have access to the most fundamental
ensures the absolute liberty of each to fully develop their individuality as they see
it without undue societal interference; it guarantees the necessities for self-
ideology based on the premise that both living and non-living things deserve
respect, as each is an integral part of the circle of life and its sustainor, our Earth.
individual liberty necessary for each person to be free to follow their own
fully develop their potential as an individual (as Locke would argue for); yet at the
same time provides the ultimate safety net for all of mankind: community. Not
their own in society to make their own way economically, via their labor. In
which keeps wages low and an ever ready pool of laborers for the industrialist; the
lack of equal opportunity for individuals due to race, gender or class; the depletion
9
of high-paying blue-collar employment with a simultaneous increase in minimum-
downplayed.
The idea of communal "rights" for those things that are human necessities is
distinctly at odds with Locke's ideas of "just" acquisition of private property. For
"Communal" rights do not exist; only individuals have rights. And while Locke
believed in charity, his views towards the poor tended to be somewhat appalling.
Stannard argues,
Because surely, argues Locke, if an individual works hard, they will acquire
sufficient private property and material wealth. Locke argues, "God gave the
remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the Industrious and
Rational" (II, pp. 333, #34). Industry in the form of labor begets property: if you
10
meant that right and conveniency no longer went together (Dunn,
1984, pp. 40).
James Walker further explains that Europeans rejected the indigenous idea of
the old social groupings and of forcing the Lakotas to face the world as
truth, we are all related. A community is where all take a certain responsibility in
the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual welfare of each, as all are
division of "yours" and "mine" when it comes to the Earth's gifts to us as two-
leggeds: food, water and warmth. These gifts, those things necessary for self-
preservation, are the right of all persons, of all life walking upon this Earth. Just as
one cannot deny others of the air they breathe to live, one should neither be denied
water to feed their children's thirst, nor food to quench their hunger. Just as
important, one should neither be denied one of the most basic things for man's
liberty -- the ability for each person to develop their full potential, can exist only
number one first" ethic) -- that potential that all humanity holds within, if only
allowed to develop -- can only exist where there is deep respect and care for all
11
possessions, and those other qualities that are so fundamental to justification of
the world of prejudice. The Creator gave the world to all that exists upon it, and
community for human beings -- those creatures that are inherently social and
For an individual alone could never have provided adequately for himself, as
the necessary interdependence of man is what has advanced society throughout the
ages. In hunting, building, feeding and clothing ourselves, we need each other as
we need the air that we breath and the water that we drink. We trade with one
another in order to have the luxuries of shelter and warmth, clothing and food. An
individual -- without the implements that only people working together (society)
punishment for a member of the Nation was banishment from the tribe. While
other individuals (his wife, children, or whomever) could accompany the banished
The Haudenosaunee and Lakota; the two Nations I discuss in depth, and most
indigenous peoples throughout the world, had a truly unique view of what was
important in the scheme of life. Material possessions beyond those necessary for
continuation of life were not among the top of the list. Rather, the quest for
harmony: within one's own soul, with one's environment, with the Creator and the
Likewise, the quest for harmony was the distinguishing feature of their social
and political systems, being an end in itself. Both groups instituted a system of
democracy where each individual participated extensively in democratic
12
deliberations affecting the whole tribe, and every voice; those of the women, the
elderly, even what Lockean society would deem "children" -- those under 16 --
were heard and respected as equal to all others. Decision-making came after
achieve harmony), and leaders had no power to create laws against the will of the
individual.
via community respect. In both indigenous societies, one was never forced to go
against his own conscience: for traditional leaders could commit no man to action
of life, liberty and estate, all of which he puts under the title of "property". Locke
whose duty is the preservation of property. Equality, economic and social, is left
to the individual, and hence not a major concern of government as long as liberty
remains unhindered.
certain basic social guarantees, such as assurance of food on the table, availability
of health care, and other basic necessities of life, equal opportunity does not exist.
Without it, Rousseau's argument holds: "for let a giant and a dwarf set out in the
same road, the giant at every step will acquire a new advantage over the dwarf"
13
(Rousseau, pp. 208-209). So it is in a society in which liberty is emphasized and
economically advantaged.
In this work, I argue that the indigenous system of liberty of the individual and
equality and a communal system of material goods and land tenure, can result in
Why the communal system of those things necessary to sustain human life?
(Note, I argue not for the complete wiping clean of the slate, i.e., redistribution of
beyond those that are inherent to sustaining life itself were not distributed equally,
rather, these things came from the merit and industriousness of the particular
individual, and hence varied with each.) Without the basics in life in a capitalist
ahead, while in reality working to maintain one's current position. Without the
basic sustenance of life, individuals rarely have the opportunity to discover their
unique individuality -- they are too busy trying to scramble for their own
impoverished would dissuade them from being involved in the political arena.
14
If individuals are in poverty, they are inhibited in their ability to fully develop
their political selves and their own individuality. This is problematic of course, as
both the individual and society suffer as society looses the richness of diversity
and slowly decays within. For what would today's world be like if those persons
who advocated an end to slavery had not been a part of the diverse conversation of
the common good? What would life be like if the "radical" ideas of Martin Luther
King had not flourished like a rose in a garden of opposition? Individuality can
flourish!
Every human being, via the fact that each has the capacity to reason, deserves
respect, simply by virtue of being human. Inherent in this concept is the idea that
clothing, food and shelter are but the very foundations of respect: for one's self
and for others. All human beings deserve to eat, and be sheltered from the harsh
bounty belongs to all, not just to those who "appropriated" it earlier than others.
Surely each human being deserves these small pittances from the vast pool of
resources available. For without some kind of security when it comes to the very
basics to sustain life, all the liberty in the world can never makeup for the lack of
equality of opportunity.
land tenure, are not, as Locke would have us believe, conflicting ideas. In fact, it
is through the combining of the two that individuals and individuality flourishes,
15
because all then hold equality of opportunity as well as the right to individual
liberty.
sustain life, every individual is given the equality of opportunity that is their
inherent right by virtue of their being human. As the opportunity for individuality
to flourish and grow emerges, society and all within it similtaneously flourishes:
as new ideas are generated, and as ideas of a social and political public good are
common good for all is established in society by allowing each to flourish, not
only those with the money and power to do so. Indigenous societies prove to be
the valuable examples of just how harmonious a society can be when based on
property with those of the Lakota and Haudenosuanee is a project that has
people everywhere look for more just ways of conducting human relations on a
large social scale. Indigenous thought gives us such a unique view of the
important place, and indigenous world views have been tragically overlooked in
the development of the industrialized "1st" world. This trend needs to be reversed.
working participatory democracy that had existed peacefully within the 6 Nations
for hundreds of years before any European state achieved such a high ideal. The
16
same group demonstrated pure communal living, where each gave according to
their ability, and received according to his or her needs; having an important
and thorough study of the social theory of these two indigenous Nations is clearly
needed. What they have to offer the 21st Century could be of immense
importance.
The Lakota have been less understood and studied than the Haudenosaunee.
Historically, the Lakota and most indigenous Nations had no written language, but
rather a rich oral tradition that had at its basis the belief that when we speak, our
words must come from the heart. By writing them down, we lose the sincerity and
clarity of oral communication -- the words "become cold" in their written form.
They become something to be examined from the head only -- a classic use of
reason without the ethical knowledge that comes from the heart.
The Lakota recorded time through winter counts -- a person was trained from
childhood to remember the major event that marked each year: each year counted
by its winter. Lakota winter counts could go back hundreds of years, and being the
keeper of the count was considered a special honor for the individual. Each of the
The history of the Lakota Nations was most frequently passed down from
generation to generation via long nights of story-telling. Elders were the historians
invested with the honor of relating specific incidents and legends of the Nations'
histories, keeping traditions and beliefs alive among the people. Further, culture
written form until the inception of the European -- and, problematically, the truth
of indigenous societies and tradition became distorted through eyes that could not
see objectively beyond their own religion and culture. The Natives were
. . . no one will believe that the law of nature is best known and
observed among these primitive and untutored tribes, since among
most of them there appears not the slightest trace or track of piety,
merciful feeling, fidelity, chastity, and the rest of the virtues; but
rather they spend their life wretchedly among robberies, thefts,
debaucheries, and murders. Thus the law of nature does not appear
to be written in the hearts of men, if those who have no other guide
than nature itself . . . live in such ignorance of every law, as though
there were no principle of rightness and goodness to be had at all
[emphasis mine] (Locke, 1954, III, pp. 139-141).
natural man. After centuries of massacres of native peoples, and the genocide that
is continued upon them today in the form of reservation life, the answer to the
question of who was and was not "civil" is a much different one than would be
stated above, both Nations had no "written" language. The Haudenosaunee are
well-known for their way of recording history: through the shell beads of a
"wampam belt". Each wampam belt told a story: whether of battles and victories,
peoples. Always, one person of the tribe was taught from childhood how to read
18
the belts, how to read the stories so that history was immortalized for the
Haudenosaunee.
can rarely be found in books, when it comes to Lakota or for that matter any
and written about by Europeans much earlier than the Lakota, and much more is
documented about their political and social system, the philosophy that is the
foundation of their lives is under-documented and has been skewed through eyes
and recorded their words verbatim -- these are some of the better sources.
However, there is still the problem of translation -- were the words of elders
correctly translated into such a foreign tongue as English? Frequently, they were
not.
How does one go about looking for "truth" in a society where so little written is
historically correct? With lack of definitive written "truth", there is only one
answer -- to go to the reservation, to speak and spend time with the elders, the
giveaways; to talk with the people, and listen to their stories of ancient times and
I will not discuss sacred ceremonies or spiritual rites in this work -- that is not
social and economic systems of these indigenous groups are so intertwined with
their spirituality as to be inseparable. Always, harmony with the Creator and all
19
life were at the basis of each and every aspect of living. This must be kept in mind
actually implemented their social and political systems, Locke's system is solely a
theoretical model, and many of the finer points of the construction of his society
are left open to the reader's imagination. Locke never detailed the exact structure
of political society, rather, he lays out the legislature and executive's power,
respect for the Earth and all upon her, necessarily conflictual concepts? Can
liberty and democracy be consistent with communal living? Can this type of living
lead us to a better life, a fuller life, based on respect, freedom, compassion for
(should the right to the necessities that sustain life belong to the people?),
distribution of wealth and material goods within and without societys (can we
equitably distribute wealth without destroying individual liberty?), and our current
attitude of destruction towards the Earth. I believe this comparison can be quite
that we change our attitudes about our fellow humanity and the sustainability of
Mother Earth in the face of the current environmental and ongoing human
devastation we are witnessing.
20
What would today's society look like, if the ways of the Native Americans had
been honestly evaluated? Can we learn from and improve modern systems
through a discussion of a distinctly different world view? What did (and do)
indigenous Americans have to offer the world of philosophy, politics and society,
that seldom has been heard? I hope to examine these questions, and more, in the
following work.
21
CHAPTER II
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government begins much in the way Thomas
Hobbes began his classic work Leviathan: by theorizing man's "natural" condition
in a pre-societal world. The premise goes back to before the beginning of "civil
society", when men wandered alone on vast tracks of unencumbered land. What
state, they question, is man naturally in? Are there natural laws governing men
and men's behavior? What are these laws and how are we endowed with them?
For Hobbes, the idea of the "state of nature" was an analytical device,
understanding the origin of political power and political society at large. His idea
was simply a conceptual one: how and why had society been formed in pre-
societal Europe? What were the "natural laws" that men were bound to follow?
Was a "God-given" edict the origin of political power in society, or was there
22
Locke similarly begins his work with his own "social contract" theory.
However, his reasoning is distinctly different from that of Hobbes. For Hobbes,
the state of nature leads to a state of war of "all against all", necessitating the rise
What the state of nature [for Locke] is the condition in which God
himself places all men in the world, prior to the lives which they live
and the societies which are fashioned by the living of these lives.
What it is designed to show is not what men are like but rather what
rights and duties they have as the creatures of God (Dunn, 1984,
pp.47).
Locke agrees that indeed the state of nature leads to a state of war between
men due to a lack of authority to arbitrate disputes. Hence, civil society based on a
"social contract" and consent between men remedies the inconveniences of the
state of nature where there is no binding arbitrator for disputes. Where Locke
disagrees with Hobbes is in the recognition that government itself can be a threat
against its own citizenry. Hence Locke's insistence on the citizenry's absolute right
have the equivalent right of extracting that consent when government ceases to act
for the common good. Locke argues that governments themselves can institute a
"state of war" against their own citizenry when they usurp power and deny their
citizens basic civil and political rights. Locke specifically argues against Hobbes'
absolute sovereign when he states: "[It] is to think that Men are so foolish that
23
they take care to avoid what Mischiefs may be done them by Pole-cats, or Foxes
but are content, nay, think it Safety, to be devoured by Lions" (Locke, 1960, II, pp.
372).
The idea of consent of the people as basis for government and the equivalent
right of revolution if that government usurps its duties to its citizenry were one of
The founding fathers of the United States would clearly agree; for they took
Locke's ideas and instituted a revolution that changed the world. Cranston argues,
politics" (Cranston, 1961, pp. 29). Further, "It was the vigour of its [The Second
pp.52).
Locke's "appeal to heaven" is a conceptual tool used by him to justify the right
of revolution. The "Law of Nature", God's law, is the very basis for laws in civil
society. "For him [Locke], political rights follow from political duties and both
derive from God's will" (Dunn, 1984, pp. 31). When society's laws go against
24
natural, or God's law, then there is no appeal left to earthly government. God's law
is always superior to that of those that govern, because natural law is always
overthrow a ruler who failed to respect the Natural Rights of his subjects -- thus
derived not only from the idea of the social contract but from the supremacy of
there an unbiased arbitrator here on Earth, and no longer is there a place to appeal
injustice in the kingdom of mankind. In such cases, the people themselves have
the right to take matters into their own hands and rebel. They have the absolute
right to revolution in order to secure their liberty from the tyranny of injustice that
The "Law of Nature" is the highest of all laws, known by men through use of
their reason. However, even Locke could not explain men's capacity to understand
God's law. “. . . he [Locke] chose not to discuss at all the question of how men can
naturally know the law of nature, the binding law of God, on which, according to
the argument of the book, all human rights rested and from which the great bulk
of human duties more or less directly derived” (Dunn, 1984, pp. 29). Further,
[God's] requirement for all men in the state of nature is that they live
according to the law of nature. Through the exercise of his reason
every man has the ability to grasp the content of this law. . . . Locke .
. . was by the early 1680s far from confidant of how exactly they
held and ought to exercise the capacity to understand it (ibid, pp.
47).
25
Many scholars have argued that Locke's state of nature was, like Hobbes, only
and to justify his political philosophy. Others have argued the opposite: that for
Locke, the "state of nature" was not just a conceptual tool. Cranston has argued
that Locke believed that the "state of nature" actually existed in ancient Europe:
that in fact solitary man actually came together with others to form the social
Locke believed that the social contract had actually taken place. He
believed it was a fact of history that men had once lived in a state of
natural anarchy and had then banded together to form political
societies. For Hobbes the social contract was only an analytic device,
an attempt to apply the method of Galileo to the study of civil
society . . .(Cranston, pp. 15).
But for Locke, of course, it [the state of nature] was not a piece of
history at all, being as much present in the world of his day as a
thousand years earlier and shadowing every human political
community throughout any possible future. What it showed men was
not how the past once was, but merely what human political
authority could amount to (Dunn, 1984, pp. 48).
Many scholars have argued that Locke had in fact a living, existing example of
a state of nature. He used this example, most often incorrectly, to justify his
arguments concerning the "state of nature", "natural man", "natural law", and the
property" world. For Locke, that convenient example was 17th Century "America"
between peoples, "The promises and Bargains . . . between a Swiss and an Indian,
26
in the Woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a State
of Nature, . . . " (Locke, 1960, II, pp. 14). Barbara Arneil, in Locke and the
Americas argues: "John Locke saw America as the second garden of Eden . . .
America thus represents for Locke and his readers a two-sided Genesis, a place to
find both the origins of their past and the promise of their future" (Arneil, pp. 1-
2).
argument on the acquisition of land vis-à-vis his "labor theory of value". Most
importantly, Locke uses his beliefs regarding Native Americans to justify his
theory of private property -- how a man may justly come to have property in those
The vast majority of Locke's citations on Native Americans are within Chapter
It is here Locke lays out his "labor theory of value", as it came to be called.
Essentially, he argues, that whatever man "mixes his labor with" in a state of
nature becomes his property. Land lying "idle" -- defined by Locke as uncultivated
and unenclosed, was considered "waste". Hence, land that was used for hunting or
gathering, such as the North American continent, would be considered "idle" and
"waste" in Locke's estimation, and therefore defined as open for cultivation. For,
Locke argues, labor increases the amount of production land is capable of, and
more production enlarges the common stock of all mankind. Aaron argues of
27
it. Land which is common is uncultivated" (Aaron, pp.277). For Locke,
For it is the Native in the woods of "America" to whom Locke looks to for
Land held in common by Native American tribes was often cultivated: Nations
east of the Missouri typically cultivated land and even plains tribes did a limited
"long-houses" and the cultivation of nearby lands. Their name itself means
"people of the long house". Not only did they build relatively permanent
28
structures, but also they saved the lives of the first European settlers in America
While Locke was involved in the administration of the Carolina colony in 17th
Century "America", and held interest in the Royal African Company (a prime
concerning Native Americans came from his library of travel books and
correspondence with Carolina settlers. "Locke based his account of natural man
on the descriptions provided by the dozens of travel books he had in his library on
Accurate information on Native peoples, societies, and culture was almost non-
existent at the time (and is actually still quite difficult to come by . . . ). Rarely
nor communal sharing of material goods were frequently divulged. Rather, they
were considered by some as the "noble savage", while for others, the later word
alone captured their assessment succinctly. Few academics (the most likely place
to find some kind of "objective" study) in Locke's time had scrutinized Native
29
American philosophy, culture, and/or social structure. It remains understudied to
this day.
Locke never visited the Americas in his lifetime. Hence, he lost the chance to
learn first-hand of the ways of "natural man". He would have learned that they did
not believe that their Mother, the Earth, could be "owned": it was like trying to
"own" the air, the sky, and the sunshine upon the Earth. They did not believe that
nature's bounty was created for mankind's benefit over any other species. They did
not believe that if an individual killed a deer in the woods, it became his personal
property: rather, it was a gift for the entire Nation: for if one had food, all had
food. Many things that Locke assumed to be true never were. Had he met and
experienced indigenous Americans, his theory, and specifically his labor theory of
Further, Locke was "selective" in his use of examples from the small amount
books. Only those that fit with his theory and thus supported his arguments,
especially those regarding private property and the indigenous American, were
espoused in the Two Treatises. “Locke chose only those aspects of American life
which fit his theory. While Amerindians are used by Locke to explain his
30
Further, "He ignores those writings, amongst his books on Americas, which are
opposed to his conception of natural men; for the goal is. . . to use them to
consequences for his theory of private appropriation, as well as for the subsequent
mass of humanity who built their societies on Locke's foundations. Many of his
assumptions of a people who lived democratically and believed in the care and
welfare of the entire community as more important than their own individual
interest.
If Locke had examined these social systems, he would have been enchanted to
find a society that was rich in political deliberation and respect for individuality,
and disappointed to learn that Native American Nations lived communally when it
came to the necessities of life, as both concepts of "private" and "property" were a
There is evidence that many of the claims based on indigenous Americans that
Locke asserted in his Two Treatises are distorted and/or false. Premises are the
suppositions are false, the legitimacy of the theory suffers. It is clearly time to re-
examine the arguments, to re-evaluate the ground Locke stands on. For if Locke
had actually met and sought to understand "natural man", a different concept of
society, politics and property might have emerged. There is no need here to argue
31
the importance and influence of Locke's Two Treatises on representative,
capitalist societies today. A more interesting question might be, What were the
tenants of Native American societies, and how would modern society look, if we
32
CHAPTER III
PHILOSOPHICAL SCHISMS
The old Lakota was wise. He knew that man‟s heart away from nature
grows cold, and that lack of respect for living, growing things soon
leads to lack of respect for human beings too. So he kept his heart
close to nature‟s softening influence. –Luther Standing Bear3
are in some ways similar to those of John Locke‟s: but generally there is to be
found a unique core of beliefs that sets Locke‟s individualist concept of reality on
its head.
of the group or the community within states, hence, they have no place in his
theory. His arguments on the "state of nature" and the "state of war" concern only
individualistic, not social man. His views on private property, government, and
the social contract likewise recognize only atomistic man; never "social man", nor
Locke's individualism - the belief that we were originally isolated and continue
recognized the inherent community that has always existed among mankind, nor
the fact of our necessary interdependence, as would the Lakota or Haudenosaunee.
33
The concept of community and harmony are probably the true foundations of
indigenous societies.
indigenous theory. Locke opposes this view, and argues for the right of the
individual first, the community at large second (if we view the needs of the
society).
While in Lockean society the individual is first and the group has few rights to
For in these societies, "individualistic" man did not exist. While individual
liberty was adamantly respected, the indigenous American believed that he or she
was an inherent part of something bigger than what a solitary individual could
ever achieve. They were a part of the Nation, of the community first, and an
responsibility to the community were more important than the individual and his
or her rights within society. A person's rights and privileges never exceeded that
person's duties and responsibilities" (O'Brien, pp. 15). While in Lockean society,
"The state is made for the individual and not the individual for the state. It is in
this sense, more than in any other, that Locke is the champion of individualism"
34
(Aaron, pp. 286). He continues, "Locke is an individualist; yet his individualism is
left undefined, for no definite solution is to be found in his works of the vexed
problem of the relations between individual and community" (ibid, pp. 284).
Native American "community" was a much more entailed concept than just
build their lives, as well as individual responsibility to forward the common good
of the whole. Daly and Cobb argue that the following must be present for a
community to exist.
Hence, community and society are not interchangeable concepts. While we are
all in society, very few of us exist in community with our fellow man. Daly
continues, "We want a term that suggests that people are bound up with one
that people participate together in shaping the larger grouping of which all are
as relations: one's brother the wind; one's sister the moon; or one's mother, the
"All relations, not of the immediate family, and all close friends were tahunsa, or
cousins, . . . ." (Walker, 1982, pp. 149). This included adopted whites and
35
members of other friendly Nations. It was each person's inherent responsibility to
care for every other person in the community. The Native Americans knew what
individual as isolated and competitive. Mankind has not progressed due to the
reason, talent and inventions of individuals alone; rather, we have always been
order to realize "his" great invention. Einstein's contributions to science had their
foundation in the successes and failures of the people before him. What, he asked,
gleaned from two millennia of work by other theorists. Watkins and Crick did not
All great progress for humanity is the result of interdependence between people
cooperating out of intrinsic necessity. Try to build your own home. You will need
the steel from mine-workers, a blacksmith to fashion hammer, nails, and saws for
the lumber, and glass-makers for your windows. One man alone does not build a
never really existed; social man does. Daly and Cobb argue, "Our basic conviction
is that persons are internally related to one another (i.e., their relationships define
their identities as persons) so that any view of people that treats them as self-
36
contained individuals falsifies the real situation" (Daly, pp. 169). Our actions do
not exist in isolation: rather they have their foundation in the larger world of
social interaction.
It is that ability to learn what mankind before us has to teach that makes human
elders. For what is learning, if not building a foundation for progress on the work
of previous human beings? Even our own personal knowledge is the result of
human beings cooperating to retain and build upon the knowledge our ancestors
worked so hard to gain.
not have gotten very far as a species. It is our interdependence that has allowed us
to progress.
Locke seems to deny that since the time of the evolutionary beginning of
humanity, human beings have never been alone. Families, clans, and friends were
undoubtedly the first "societies". The simple need for cooperation between two
quite problematic. Individuals could rarely survive alone in the woods or on the
plains of the Americas, but communities of people could. Individuals could not
adequately provide for themselves alone, nor could they procreate on their own,
The foundation for law in Lockean societies is based solely on the individual.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees individuals the right to life,
liberty and property. Individuals have rights, groups do not. This is especially true
37
in the case of property. Hence, individuals have a Constitutional right to "own"
The U.S. government in fact implemented this very idea into action when, in
1887 it passed the Dawes Act, breaking up reservation (communal) land and
The result was devastating to the Native Americans -- much reservation land was
understanding the existing family and tribal structure or the property rights
territories, but they were never considered owned by the people. Rather, the
opposite was true, i.e. the people belonged to the land. Rather than believing in a
private property ethic, human beings, as the rational species, had a special
responsibility to care for the Earth, so that it could support all life to come. It was
never owned by the people, but rather borrowed from the future generations of all
life to come. "People did not own the land and resources; instead, individuals had
The community working together provided food and shelter for all, at least
when times were good, game was plentiful, and Europeans weren't. Hunting
parties of the most able men provided meat for the entire community, while the
38
women worked together converting the hides and skins into clothing and tools --
and shelter in the case of the Lakota. The Haudenosaunee lived together (literally)
their land while the men fished or hunted. It was people working together that
While individual life is fleeting, the community, the Nation, "the people" as an
entity in and of itself, lived on forever. To this day on the reservation they speak
of the "Lakota people", or “Indian people”, as a viable, sovereign entity: and it is -
- a community of people who believe that the whole constitutes more than just the
was more indigenous to Native Americans than what Locke argues are the
essential traits in all mankind. Self-sacrifice for one's fellow man and "the
common good" were endemic. It was the community, the people as one being, as
one entity working together, that ensured survival for all. If an individual died, he
or she could be sure that their loved one's would be well fed, loved and cared for
by the Nation as a whole. This is the ultimate kind of security -- the kind money
At the same time individual rights were adamantly respected, especially the
"headman" or "Sachem" could force an individual to act against his or her own
conscience -- as following the path of one's own heart -- the path to harmony
Harmony, rather than power, was in fact the chief end of political society for the
Lakota and Haudenosaunee.
39
Locke's philosophical premises regarding "human nature" were fundamental in
justification of his argument for man's need to enter into civil society. However,
they are problematic in two ways: the first being the claim that such a thing as one
common "human nature" exists; the second, the assumption that this questionable
"human nature" exists in a negative form, i.e., that human relationships are
inherently conflictual; that self-interest and greed lye at the foundation of our very
nature; that man cannot be objective when his own interests are at stake.
all the rest of mankind. Antagonisms of man against man are endemic in this
Locke believed these traits are carried with us into society. Dunn argues,
The debate about human nature is as old as man himself, and I will not
undertake in this work to decide the question for humanity. But a few facts need
to be noted: that human beings are not inherently anything when it comes to vice
or virtue. For each aggressive human being we can find one who demonstrates
compassion; for each that hates, one that loves; for each who is self-serving and
The debate on "human nature" will continue to rage: it cannot be settled here.
The problem of course comes when one bases an entire theory, an entire ordering
view of human nature is an important foundation for his entire theory, because it
is this conflictual nature that necessitates the rise and institution of government.
40
For the Haudenosaunee, the very opposite is true. It is mankind's capability for
of government.
simply, the "Peacemaker", put before the people of the Haudenosaunee the idea
that all human beings possessed rational thought, and as such, are capable of
is the foundation of society. Hence, while reason and its ability to bring harmony
As in the style of most 17th Century Europeans, the biblical belief that the
earth and all within is here for man's use, for man's dominion is fundamental
premise in Locke's Treatise. Locke states, "God and his Reason commanded him
[man] to subdue the Earth, . . ." (Locke, 1960, II, #32, pp. 332). ". . . subduing or
cultivating the Earth, and having Dominion, we see are joyned together. The one
Locke's view of man's relationship with the Earth focuses on dominance and
exploitative one, that generates wealth through the exploitation of her resources,
including human beings. This rationale turned into policy in the Americas was
Divine guidance told the settlers that they were to multiply and
replenish the earth. If Indians were not physically dwelling on and
planting the earth, it was being wasted. The Whites could take it and
41
use it themselves, buying it from Indians if, indeed, they could find
Indians who claimed ownership of it. Or, if the Indians refused to
sell it, they could take it by force. Much of the land, of course,
contained hunting grounds or fishing stations. But the Whites came
to regard it as wasteland . . . (Josephy, pp. 8).
that man has not dominion, but rather is only a part and parcel of all living things
in existence, all of whom deserve the same respect that one would give a brother.
Not only living creatures had a right to continue their existence, but the rivers, the
seas, the oceans, mountains and plains all are respected as relatives -- clearly not
find the great distinction between the faith of the Indian and the white man. Indian
faith sought the harmony of man with his surroundings; the other sought the
While Locke's philosophy regarding the earth and her resources is patriarchal
mankind at the top, dominating and subduing the earth and its bounty for his own
purposes, regardless of the consequence to the rest of all life. For Locke, other
living and non-animate beings were placed conceptually at the bottom of the
pyramid -- created specifically for mankind's use. He states, "God gave the World
to Men in Common; but . . . he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest
Conveniences of Life they were capable to draw from it [emphasis added] . . ."
(Locke, 1960, II, #34, pp. 333). Nature, then, is to serve mankind's needs
according to Locke.
circle. The circle has many meanings for indigenous groups: the circle of life; the
42
revolving seasons; the cycles of nature; and time. Yet the circle represents
indigenous philosophy in two critical respects: the idea that everything in creation
is connected to everything else in nature, hence, we are all literally relations; and
that all things in creation have an equal place in the natural order of things. None,
All life on Earth, and not just human beings, are inherently connected to one
another, in that they form a circle of life facilitating one another's existence.
Mankind cannot live without the "plant people". They create more than just food
for humans: they also create oxygen for us to breathe, while we give off the
carbon dioxide they need to live. The four-leggeds once provided meat, shelter,
warm clothing, tools, and heat (buffalo chips) for indigenous Americans. They
sustained physical life for human beings. The plant people sustained the four-
leggeds. The rich soil sustains the plant life. Decaying organic matter (plant,
animal and human) sustains the rich soil. And so all were connected, necessary
and intrinsic parts of the circle called "life". To destroy any part of the circle: to
endanger the whole. For if any species is lost, the hoop is broken.
Mankind has no more right to decimate a species than another species has the
43
Indian religious and political values were based on the belief that a
spiritual force lived within every natural being . . . Human beings
were not considered superior to and above nature but rather were
thought to be connected to and part of nature (O'Brien, pp. 14-15).
Just as all entities are intrinsically connected, they are also inherently related in
indigenous American philosophy. All entities are all of the same origin -- one
omnipotent Creator and the Earth he created to sustain life. “All life forms that
comprise the universe, from the stars in the sky to the grasses on the earth, were
Science agrees -- that there is a common ancestry among all life (see Chapter
4) just as all that exists in the universe has a common beginning. And importantly,
it is not just living, breathing things that are included in this circle of life; non-
animate beings -- the "rock people", the "stone nation" -- hold an equally
important place to those of the living. Note the terminology, denoting both
We believed that the spirit pervades all creation and that every
creature possesses a soul in some degree, though not necessarily a
soul conscious of itself. The tree, the waterfall, the grizzly bear, each
is an embodied Force, and as such an object of reverence" (Eastman,
1980, pp. 15).
The term "Mitakuye Oyasin" reflects this belief. Mitakuye Oyasin means
literally "all my relations" or "all my relatives". Conceptually it states that "we are
all related", and refers not just to humankind. The Lakota believe that one
omnipotent Creator called Wakan Tanka (literally Great Holy or Great Mystery) or
Tunkashila (literally Grandfather), is the source of all life and all that exists in this
universe. At the same time they recognized that the Earth he created is the mother
of all physical life -- she provides food and water and the heat and shelter
necessary to sustain the physical body. All in existence on this Earth and on this
44
universe, are therefore inherently our relations, as we all came from the same
origin. Tunkashila, or Wakan Tanka is the giver of the soul, of that energy we call
the "life force", just as the Earth our Mother gives us physical life. Hence, all
It is one Creator alone that created the Earth, the Sun, and the universe as we
know it, and so these things were to be revered -- never "worshipped" -- by the
The Lakota loved the sun and earth, but he worshipped only Wakan
Tanka, or Big Holy, who was the Maker of all things of earth, sky,
and water. Wakan Tanka breathed life and motion into all things,
both visible and invisible. He was over all, through all, and in all,
and great as was the sun, and good as was the earth, the greatness
and goodness of the Big Holy were not surpassed. The Lakota could
look at nothing without at the same time looking at Wakan Tanka,
and he could not, if he wished, evade His presence, for it pervaded
all things and filled all space (Standing Bear, pp. 197).
Early Europeans didn't take the time or lacked the compassion and insight to
called the "mother" and it appears to rank second among the gods [emphasis
added]" (Grinnell, pp. 3)!! This from a man who was adopted and lived with the
45
Cheyenne! Indigenous Americans were an enigma to encroaching European-
Americans.
backwards. Rather than mankind having dominion over the Earth, the Earth has
dominion over us. We are literally of this earth. It is from her bounty that physical
life springs forth. She nurtures us, she is forever giving. As small children, it is the
air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink that allows us to grow into
adults. It is from her womb that we grow and live. She is our mother, in the literal
sense of that term. From her mountains we find nourishment for the soul; from the
plains, nourishment for the body. Her rivers quench our thirst, her oceans feed us
and cradle us as we are their children. The Native American will argue what
terms with the rest of creation, and it follows that the rest of creation has as much
right to continue its existence as do human beings. Each part, each being, each
object in this universe is an intrinsic part of the whole, no one more important
than another, as all are related and necessary to facilitate one another's existence.
. . . this was in accordance with the Lakota belief that man did not
occupy a special place in the eyes of Wakan Tanka, the Grandfather
of us all. I was only a part of everything called the world. I can now
46
see that humaneness is not a thing which can be ordered by law. It is
an ideal to be lived (Standing Bear, pp. 22).
human centered. Man does not occupy a special place at the center of the Creator's
From Wakan Tanka there came a great unifying life force that
flowed in and through all things -- the flowers of the plains, blowing
winds, rocks, trees, birds, animals -- and was the same force that had
been breathed into the first man. Thus all things were kindred and
brought together by the same Great Mystery. Kinship with all
creatures of the earth, sky, and water was a real and active principle..
. . This concept of life and its relations was humanizing and gave to
the Lakota an abiding love. . . . it gave him reverence for all life; it
made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal
importance to all (ibid, pp. 193).
We are part of the earth and it is a part of us. The perfumed flowers
are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great condor, these are our
brothers. The rocky crests, the juices of the meadows, the body heat
of the pony, and man all belong to the same family (Gifford, pp. 32).
. . . The rivers are our brothers; they quench our thirst. The rivers,
between the tender arms of their banks, carry our canoes where they
will. If we sell your our land, you must remember, and teach your
children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours, and you must
henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give to any
brother (ibid, pp. 34-5).
While Locke will argue that humans are superior to all creatures, the Lakota
and other indigenous American groups tend to recognize that mankind has
inherent limitations comparatively to other creatures of the Earth. Man has not
the swiftness of the horse, the eye of the eagle, nor the longevity of the Oak ---
we are but two-leggeds. We have much to learn from nature herself if only we
47
can learn to listen. Indigenous Americans knew how to open their minds to the
If we can only learn to watch; to be silent; to open our eyes and ears and
minds, the Earth has much to teach us. Human beings must learn to approach
nature with great humility, for comparatively we are inherently limited and but
Mankind must humbly acknowledge his place in the order of things, and that
place is not domination over the earth and all she holds, but rather as a brother
to all in existence. We are but equals to the “stone nation”, the rivers and trees,
the snakes and field mice. We have no right to “dominate and subdue”: that
right is retained by the Creator and his creation, Mother Earth. For to they alone
belongs the power to destroy the most presumptuous of men, the strongest of
responsibility to the Earth. It is our duty to preserve her for the future
indigenous belief. 'We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we have
borrowed it from our children'. In essence, man has not dominion over the
earth; we are rather stewards or trustees, here to protect and ensure the survival
of all so that our children's children may enjoy her bounty side by side with the
"animal people", the "plant people" and the "stone nation": all existence on the
Earth. Our duty to the Creator, to the Earth, to our children and ourselves, is to
48
respect, share, and actively protect the Earth so that she may continue to give
life to Creation.
Respect and responsibility for the Creator's creation: the Earth and all of her
ecology. Human life is important, but other lives: the plants, the animals, the
rivers, the oceans and air also have the same right to continue their existence,
environmental) stand point. The earth was to be used for mankind's benefit, for
"the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it" (Locke,
1960, II, #34, pp. 333) according to Locke's biblical beliefs. It was "given" to
mankind to dominate, the animals for his use, the resources for his taking. We
witness as a result of this philosophy the plundering, the pillaging, the outright
degradation of the only planet we have to walk upon, Mother Earth. Until "civil
society" recognizes the importance of every part of the cycle of life as necessary
for the continuation of the whole, and the absolute necessity of respect for each
Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit
upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. This we know. The
earth does not belong to the white man, the white man belongs to the
earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which
unites one family. If we kill the snakes, the field mice will multiply
and destroy our corn. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the
earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the earth (Gifford, pp.46-7).
49
This acknowledgment of the inherent interconnectedness of all life is
evident in Standing Bear's words, "The white man considered natural animal
life . . . as 'pests.' Plants which the Indian found beneficial were also 'pests'.
There is no word in the Lakota vocabulary with the English meaning of this
word" (Standing Bear, pp. 165). Everything on the Earth has its own intrinsic
brings us to another critical premise for Locke: the primacy of human reason over
As with traditional western political theorists, Locke argues that reason is the
supreme "law of nature", which men are bound to follow. Thus reason alone
becomes the ultimate guide in life for all mankind (incidentally, he argues that
"savages" did not possess reason in his Essay on Human Understanding). Locke
argues that,
The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges
every one: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all mankind, . . .
that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another
in his life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions (Locke, 1960, II, #6, pp.
311).
white man‟s “manifest destiny” over indigenous peoples. Locke agreed. Dunn
argues of Locke's theory,
50
It is reason that distinguishes man from beast, and the way of reason
is the way that God wills men to follow. It is through the exercise of
their reason that men can and should know what God wills them to
do; and it is their reason that enables them to judge what it would be
best to do where God's will does not enter directly into the matter.
(Dunn, 1984, pp. 46).
things, but ethical and spiritual understanding come from a separate place. Reason
may separate men from the beasts, but in absence of the ethical knowledge that
comes from within the human heart, it has led to societies that are overly
individualistic and competitive and hence destructive to the human soul and its
physical environment.
Reason has been the major tool of destruction of both the Earth and mankind
itself. The ominous threat of nuclear weapons; the decimation of the world's major
source of oxygen, the rainforests; and the continuing genocidal policies of States
everywhere, are significant examples of man's use of reason without joining the
ethical knowledge that comes from within. Human beings may be the only life
form with reason, but we are also the only life form capable of destroying all that
mankind has the ability to reason, and hence the ability to use that reason to create
a peaceful social order. Likewise, according to the Lakota, the use of reason is one
of mankind's most powerful assets. However, the Nations realized that reason
alone is not enough to guide human beings down an ethical, and hence self-
enriching, path.
Is reason alone enough to order the passions of man? Reason comes from the
head, while the passions of men are ordered from the heart. Without an ethical
'check', reason can be twisted into rationalization. Within the human soul, within
51
the human heart, lay the ethical knowledge necessary to guide men to right
actions. Indigenous Americans knew that one must "think through their heart",
and not their heads alone, in order to achieve this. Sun Chief, a Hopi remembers
that,
I had learned many English words and could recite part of the Ten
Commandments. I knew how to sleep on a bed, pray to Jesus, comb
my hair, eat with a knife and fork, and use a toilet. . . . I had also
learned that a person thinks with his head instead of his heart
(McLulan, pp. 108).
Yes, ideas come from the mind, from the head, but they must be "run through
the heart", according to indigenous philosophy. Only through looking within and
ethically evaluating our reason can we be sure that our actions are just. Without
As two-leggeds, the worst tragedies we have experienced have been the result
everywhere; and the threat of bio-chemical holocaust, were all products of reason
and his theoretical successors to justify the taking of Native lands and the
decimation of its peoples are only but a few such examples. George Bird Grinnell,
These policies were continued by the United States government well into the
property. Unfortunately, the effect of the act was to also allow the now
their traditional hunting grounds and their major means of sustenance -- the
buffalo, were now forced to sell their land in order to obtain money to buy food,
clothing, and other necessities of life. Government commodities were too few to
adequately feed the people, and money, the new and only way to provide for
result.
Further, the U.S. government in the 1940s and 1950s began a policy of
no longer exist, according to the Federal government, after the current tribal
members were deceased. The Termination of the Menominee Indians Act of 1954
states, "At midnight of the date of enactment of the Act the roll of the tribe . . .
shall be closed and no child born thereafter shall be eligible for enrollment, . . . "
(Prucha, pp. 234). The Federal government could then stop providing support
(commodities, etc.) for tribal members, as well as divide up the now defunct
53
reservations into privately-owned individual plots, bought by white Europeans at
fire-sale prices.
There is a distinct difference between "reason" and "ethical reasoning". One lay
in the minds alone of mankind, where rationalizations frequently disturb the very
equilibrium we try to achieve in life, taking us down the path that enlarges that
void deep within all human souls. Ethical reasoning, on the other hand, comes
from a combination of the heart and the mind, i.e., the soul. This can facilitate the
experience of peace, of harmony with one's own self and the exterior world. It can
lead to the eventual fulfillment of that void inside that all humans inevitably try to
fill, and it can lead to realization of a common good for all of mankind.
This is why the ethical reasoning of the Native American, as opposed to use of
achieving an inner harmony vis-à-vis ethical knowledge, not reason alone, can we
as two-leggeds find peace in our soul and in our world: the peace that all humans
Indigenous Americans knew that spirituality was the true blood of life and
facilitated the triumph of the human soul. The ability to think through one's heart -
- ethical reasoning -- is the first step on that long "red road". Human beings try to
actively fill the void within, whether through excessive acquisition of material
goods; success; fame; alcohol; drugs; or whatever seems to fit. Each of these
unfortunate attempts only serve to enlarge it, until eventually its demands become
unyielding. Spirituality, for indigenous Americans, was the only way to fill that
void, although there are many paths to that way. This is critical to human life, as it
is only through this kind of ethical reasoning, rather than simple reasoning, that
we as two-leggeds can enjoy a truly fulfilled lifetime.
54
For indigenous Americans, ethical reasoning is inherently related to justice.
that comes only from within. "There is no word in the Lakota language which can
be translated literally into the word 'justice'; nevertheless, there was the certain
practice of it as evidenced in the phrase Wowa un sila, 'A heart full of pity for all'"
(Standing Bear, pp. 137). Justice occurs when balance is achieved between the
where this equilibrium creates harmony -- peace of soul -- within that justice
triumphs. The very essence of justice then, is internal balance.
The problem with seeking "justice" from without is that it is not long
leaves too many individuals discontent on both sides of the equation, creating
serious disequilibrium in lives and the harmony that was the objective of
indigenous societies.
crime finds no justice in the imprisonment of their abductor, their thief, their
attempted murderer. It is only through acceptance, growth and the ability to move
on after that harshest of struggles: betrayal, by humanity, one's own body, or life
itself -- that harmony is re-established and justice is finally served. For the thief in
the night takes more than just one's belongings, and the rapist more than just one's
security. They take the soul by taking the humane-ness out of humanity.
important to find justice within as it is to realize it without. It is when the soul can
find peace again and there is no more need for unanswerable questions to be
asked, that justice has been truly served. Justice, harmony, and their foundation,
ethical reasoning, are the basis of a happy existence and fulfilled lifetime for the
55
individual. For without ethical reasoning the dangers of rationalizations are
unleashed, and every act becomes the rational one, regardless of its irrationality.
For Locke's premises go beyond the political arena: they go all the way to
man's purpose in this life. For Locke, preservation of life, liberty and property
were not only the end of government, but also essential for man's development, so
Liberty meant opportunity for Locke: at least for those with enough land and
For only property owners could be citizens in Locke's political theory. Yolton
stresses the importance of landed property for Locke when he states, "[Locke's]
essays make the same point: 'For what justice is there where there is no personal
The problem came for those whose "liberty" in the marketplace kept them in a
equality or even rights above subsistence assuming one worked actively. Locke
fails to note that without the necessities for self-preservation, without food in
one's stomach and warmth and shelter in the cold, liberty is inherently restricted,
by virtue of impoverishment. Those without the most basic necessities rarely are
56
able to fully develop their individuality, and society itself suffers as a result of that
loss. Hence the problem with Lockean theory: the ownership of property gave one
wealth, possessions, land: these became the yardsticks by which man is measured,
and an entire world came to accept these things -- as not only the definition of
success, but of the man himself. Property came to be an end in itself, rather than a
means to an end -- preservation of life. And material wealth can never be an end
in itself, for greed is insatiable; and security cannot be bought at any price other
than death. Material wealth becomes a heavy chain to those who have it, and the
For the Lakota, material wealth mattered not. "Wealth" was measured not by
visitor was permitted to go from a tipi hungry" (Walker, 1982, pp. 65).
In indigenous societies, the wealthiest person was never he who had the most,
but rather he who gave the most. Generosity -- that ability to give and give freely -
- defined wealth. "As a child, I understood how to give; I have forgotten that grace
since I became civilized . . . Any pretty pebble was valuable to me then; every
growing tree an object of reverence" (Eastman, pp. 88), stated Ohiyesa. For the
57
Native American knew that true wealth is something that can only be defined
Material goods needed only to be adequate for survival for the members of the
Haudenosaunee and Lakota. While Locke argues of indigenous societies that "a
King of a large fruitful Territory there feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day
Labourer in England" (Locke, 1960, II, #41, pp. 339), indigenous peoples of the
Americas would disagree. For true wealth has never consisted of material
possessions, and before the coming of the European, sustanence was plentiful.
Any and all goods were to be used by band members at the call of
need. If a man were without a horse it was the chief's place to see
that he got another; if a family needed a tipi it was the duty of all in
the band to lend hands in getting another . . . There was no possible
excuse for hoarding; on the contrary it stood for selfishness and lack
of self-restraint, since all goods or accumulated property were
tacitly for the purpose of distribution [emphasis added] (Standing
Bear, pp. 168-169).
plenty while others suffer and are hungry was an anathema to their philosophy.
Indigenous Americans knew that wealth was an internal quality, and can be
bought only at the price of experience and respect. Wealth, for the indigenous
with the Creator. Harmony in community. Giving of one‟s self. These were the
things that a man was measured by -- internal qualities that brought internal
wealth.
Material possessions can never bring wealth – they only bring material
possessions. And one cannot eat their gold, nor receive affection from their silver.
The only material possessions that mattered to Native Americans were those
that were life-sustaining -- and those were to be shared communally -- and those
58
of a spiritual nature; pipes, eagle feathers, sage, cedar and sweetgrass. Hence, ". . .
the love of possessions has appeared a snare, . . . it was the rule of his [the
Lakotas] life to share the fruits of his skill and success with his less fortunate
brothers. Thus he kept his spirit free from the clog of pride, cupidity, or envy, . . .
The indigenous American would give and give until he was poor in earthly
possessions but rich in the joy of giving. And the people would ensure that the
giver would not go hungry or cold, as they too always gave back. This is the true
nature of wealth; it is never something that can be bought and sold. It can only be
the Two Treatises. Locke believed in political but not economic or social equality
for citizens. Citizenship belonged only to the literate, educated, and propertied
(read here: wealthy) white male sector of society. Political equality was (for
duty to further the common good of individuals. However, political equality was
interpreted narrowly: "one man one vote", rather than its broader meaning: equal
Social and economic inequality on the other hand, was for Locke inherent in
society due to liberty manifested by men‟s individual capabilities and industry (or
lack there-of). For Locke, the poor are in such a state due to their own failings,
their own laziness, and hence government need not look to economic or social
59
possessions, men have made practical out of the bounds of societie, .
. . (ibid, #50, pp. 344).
Fundamentally, Locke argues, human beings in a state of nature are by the law
of nature (reason) equal to one another, at least when it comes to life and liberty.
However, Locke argues in the following quote that God makes distinctions among
men (inherent in his comment about "rank" in a state of nature), and that only
those who enjoy material wealth -- man having accepted unequal and
disproportionate shares of the earth through their industry and labor -- should be
Likewise, those who do not enjoy material "wealth" -- in this case land, will not
. . . there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same
species and rank [emphasis added], promiscuously born to all the
same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should
also be equal one amongst another [ditto] without subordination or
subjection . . . ." (ibid, #4, pp. 309).
Locke apparently is arguing that even in a state of nature, some men are superior
derived from society, one not generally applicable to men in a "state of nature".
These persons who are, shall we say, more equal than others, are presumably
those that acquired property in the form of material goods or land in that time
Locke denies citizenship for those who do not own property in the form of
land. He, unlike Rousseau, does not recognize that once societies are formed and
estate meets estate, so that no "vacant" land was left for the taking, society itself
may be the very perpetrator of the economic inequality that gives birth to political
60
inequality. Economic inequality (poverty) is what denied men the property
necessary to become citizens in the first place, thereby negating any possibility of
attaining political rights. His own theory demonstrates how true this is in a
capitalist society. If you are not a property-owner you are not a citizen; if you are
not a citizen, you have no political rights, no political equality. Does social and/or
definition.
In a world of scarcity, where all land has been appropriated, the opportunities
for men to enrich themselves by their industry alone fall only to the very few,
while the vast majority may very well be industrious yet impoverished. Hence
Locke assumes that social and economic inequality derive from the man
owner; and while this is initially defined as life, liberty and property, it is material
goods and land that Locke concentrates on in both obtaining citizenship and in his
labor theory of value. Wood states, "Coming to Chapter 5 . . . the most obvious
characteristic is not simply property but landed property" (Wood, pp. 49).
Rousseau and Karl Marx. Rousseau argued that it is society itself that gives birth
to social and economic inequality. For how can any human be economically
unequal in a perfect state of nature where each has the ability to appropriate what
is needed to sustain one's own existence? Economic inequality cannot exist in a
61
state of nature when each has equal access to resources, and the lives of
there was never economic inequality (as the following chapter discusses in detail),
because material goods and land tenure were used communally and for the tacit
Paine agrees.
Rather than a lack of industry, it is the established laws of private property and
the disparity of material wealth they produce that instituted economic inequality
62
and correspondingly political inequality. The "propertied" in society indirectly
denied equality to the masses while at the same time retaining the majority of
political power and wealth, by creating societies that established and legitimized
It is the bounds of society itself, then, that deal the cards to the masses of
humanity. It is society itself that promotes the very scarcity that is so intrinsic to
turns as a hamster wheel; where you work harder only to remain where you began.
denial of their territorial rights, their expulsion, and eventually their decimation.
Surprisingly, Karl Marx, who would become the leading intellectual critic of
Lockean theory, believed that Locke was correct; that all value indeed is the
is it not then the individual laborer that should receive the profits from his
answered the question that has been so vexing to Lockean scholars. “Why does
the landowner receive the profits of his servants' labor? If all value comes from
labor, why doesn't all profit go to the individual laborer?” Marx‟s answer? That
such a society (a capitalist one) has its very foundations in economic inequality for
the laborer, while owners of land and capital reap the profits created by the
propertyless.
63
Therefore, according to Marx, such a society is a haven of injustice for mankind,
and more "just" societies, communal ones, should be implemented. Marx, the
The first man, who after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his
head to say, this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe
him, was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, how
many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors,
would that man have saved the human species, who, pulling up the
stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows:
Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost, if you forget that
the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to
nobody [emphasis added] (Rousseau, pp. 211-212).
Inequality is engendered by society itself and the private property ethic, where
some have a great largess, while the multitude enjoys very little. The situation
stone, the division of wealth becomes more polarized leaving more people
politically and economically impotent. How can one, even in today's societies,
participate and contribute to the political agenda equally if they cannot put food
on the table to feed their children, or afford shoes to keep their feet warm and dry
wealth, when the poor have not the time nor inspiration to meaningfully join the
political debate. In not doing so, political deliberation and society suffers a loss of
viewpoints that may be whispered yet dominant, "radical" yet popularly held. The
political system then stops reflecting the will of the people and reflects only the
will of a few. Democracy degenerates into oligarchy. More become discouraged
64
and drop out of the political debate. In doing so, we all lose access to that
deliberation, and become victims of a framework that narrowly limits our options
to a chosen few.
rich, liberty to participate in the market place, in the economic sphere, in the
must be limited to the preservation of life, liberty and property for citizens, and
otherwise men are to be considered free and at liberty to order their life as they
rather than individualism -- that ethic that argues “every man for himself”.
For Native Americans, all persons participated politically and socially, and
economic inequality was non-existent. Both liberty and equality were respected as
follow their own consciences, even if it went against a treaty had been signed by
others in the Nation. That treaty bound only signatories as no one person could
But equality was also important, both politically and economically. In council,
all could speak of their concerns. Economically, the community as a whole was
cared for -- elders did not go hungry, nor orphans or widows. All shared those
things necessary for physical survival -- food, clothing, shelter, the warmth of a
fire: just as the four-leggeds shared their bodies to keep the two-leggeds warm and
65
fed; just as the rivers share their water to quench our thirst, and just as the Creator
shares his wisdom through our own hearts. There was no such thing as economic
children had political rights hundreds of years before European women knew such
respect. Even beings not yet conceived held economic rights -- the rights to be
born on a planet that had the capacity to sustain their lives as well as those of their
children.
Native Americans, much like Rousseau, believed that one could not own the
Earth and that her bounty was for all to share. For how can one sell the sky, the
air, the oceans or rivers, or, likewise, the Earth that all men walk upon? How can
you sell all that you have to exist upon? It is like selling your own mother.
that has had a major impact on today's societies, are distinctly at odds with those
experience with them, and obtaining his information from European settlers who
What role have the property-less in Locke's society? Does equal opportunity,
the justifying foundation for an economically unequal world, really exist for those
without economic resources? Is the only option for those that have not land and
capital to become servants of those that have? Are they doomed to labor and bring
The following in this work will examine and compare Locke's views of
property, land, and governance with those of the Lakota and Haudenosaunee.
66
67
CHAPTER IV
One does not sell the land upon which the people walk. --Crazy Horse4
What is it that the white man wishes to buy, my people ask me? The
idea is strange to us. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of
the land, the swiftness of the antelope? How can we sell these things
to you and how can you buy them? Is the earth yours to do with as you
will, merely because the red man signs a piece of paper and gives it to
the white man? If we do not own the freshness of the air and the
sparkle of the water, how can you buy them from us? Can you buy
back the buffalo, once the last one has died? –Ted Perry5
as its arguments are intrinsic to today's western capitalist republics. It is here that
he lays out his renowned labor theory of value, and convincingly argues against
this chapter. Indigenous Americans, or rather how Locke perceived them, played a
critical role in the justification of Locke's theory of private property, based on his
labor theory of value. Most frequently, his assumptions as well as his claims are
inaccurate. Having only the benefit of a travel library and correspondence with
68
American settlers as a source of information, Locke's lack of accurate information,
and his tendency to assume what was not true as universal, led to the introduction
of false premises regarding the Native American and the ensuing idea of
century England. While vast-tracks of land were held by a very few, the laborers
chapter on property was a perfect instrument, arguing for the right of the laborer to
Further, Locke's labor theory of value holds an important place in the history of
mankind for another reason: for while Locke, the "father" of representative
Marx, the "father" of communism, used the idea as a basis to justify the institution
69
Locke's argument for appropriation of private property via one's labor was an
important foundation for the emerging capitalist economy that would eventually
dominate the world economy. Locke argues, "thus the turfs my servant has cut . . .
become my property" (Locke, 1960, II, #25, pp. 330). Not only does my labor
beget surplus production and therefore profit, but that of my laborers also
becomes my property, once they have received basic sustenance as a result of their
labor. This is problematic in the sense that the concept of what is "my labor" has
Only in a capitalist society does the fruit of one's labor (profit) go to the owner
Dunn agrees. "The tangled history of the labour theory of value . . . in the
the ambiguities of the theory which he fashioned" (Dunn, 1984, pp. 44).
The rejection of capitalist production that the labor theory of value promoted
was to be found in the works of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and other
communist writers of the last two centuries. For if labor begets all value, then
70
surely those who labor deserve the profit -- not the owner of land and capital.
Thus the turfs a servant has cut belong logically not to the master but rather to the
laborer, according to Marx. Max Beer, in The History of British Socialism, notes
that the theory "was destined to be made into the main weapon of socialism"
(Beer, pp. i.57), and Aaron argues "Locke here suggested a labour theory of value
Locke's labor theory of value was critical as a justification for both communist
and capitalist economic systems, and as such a basis for today's worldwide
economic systems.
Further, the labor theory of value was especially useful in the appropriation of
"vacant" land in the Americas; a fundamentally wrong premise to begin with, but
one Locke frequently used as an example. "At one level of description, the aim of
property rights in things in the state of nature" (Sreenivasan, pp. 140). This "state
of nature" existed in 17th century "America", according to Locke, and he does not
America and elsewhere and the enclosure and improvement of wastes in those
wildernesses. Witness these words of Locke and all they suggest: "Yet there are
71
still great Tracts of Ground to be found, which . . . lie waste, and are more than
the People, who dwell on it, do, or can make use of, and so still lie in common
Locke sets out in the Second Treatise to justify the private appropriation of
land by individuals, working in the context of the biblical belief that the earth was
trying to argue how one might "justly" come to have private property in anything
colonizing 17th century England. Spain claimed possession of Central and South
America by right of conquest (the conquered lost all claim to property), and
argument, later enumerated into law, was that the Lord Jesus Christ had given
Peter, (and hence the following Popes), the divine mandate to "'feed my sheep'"
(Williams, pp. 14), to lead his people to Christianity. The Spanish believed that
convert or have everything (including their life, liberty and land) taken from them.
And so conquistadors killed and enslaved, making war upon the indigenous
inhabitants. The Spanish took their lands by force. Law, founded upon the Pope's
"God-given mandate", was indeed the instrument of empire for the Spanish in the
Americas.
72
However, the English condemned the nature of Spanish conquest, and the
extent of sheer brutality in Christ's name led them to look for another way to
famous example of the theater seats (common property until occupied, private
thereafter for the duration of occupation). In the case of the Americas, however,
15 million Native Americans occupied the land, while many Englishmen were
"absentee-owners". The question of how they could justly acquire property in far
away occupied lands was a central one. “England, France, Spain, little Portugal,
all quarreling fiercely, and fighting with each other for the biggest share in the
new continent . . . all recognized the Indians' 'right of occupancy' as a right; a right
alienable in but two ways, either by purchase or by conquest” (Jackson, pp. 9).
John Locke's labor theory of value was the perfect instrument for a different
it was labor (and enclosure) that demarcated private property from the common
stock.
God gave the World to Men in Common; but since he gave it them
for their benefit, and the greatest Conveniences of Life they were
capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should
always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of
the Industrious and Rational, (and Labour was to be his Title to it) . .
. (Locke, 1960, II, #34, pp. 333).
state of nature that we mix our labor with. Locke states, "Every man has property
73
in his own person" (ibid, #26, pp. 328), hence, "the Labor of his body, the Work
of his hands, are properly his" (ibid, #27, pp. 329). The apple I pick from the wild
apple tree to quench my hunger, or the water I ladle from the stream to feed my
thirst become my property via my labor input. "The labour that was mine,
removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my Property in
However, Locke argues that there are natural law limitations on personal
acquisition of property. A man may not take all and leave nothing for others. For
his first "natural" limitation is that " . . . Labour [makes something] the
What about land? When one appropriates land, is he not lessening the common
stock available to mankind? According to Locke, the answer is no. He argues that
as land is cultivated, it becomes 10 fold more productive than when laying idle,
all mankind.
74
Hence, according to Locke, appropriation of land as private property by an
individual does not deplete the common stock of material goods available to
While the above may be a valid claim, distribution of the common stock
certainly will not be equitable. Herein lies the major failing of Locke's renowned
theory of value. Common man, servants and serfs, will not benefit: it is the
owners of land and capital that will keep the Lion's portion of the newly created
wealth, leaving only sustenance wages for those who labored. The impoverished
will remain so even though there are more products on the market, for Locke's
theory has the effect of creating great inequalities of wealth among members of
society. For even if increased supply enlarges the common stock and lowers cost
receive no benefit. Less land is left for others to appropriate to sustain themselves,
although theoretically more goods are left "in common" for others. In order for
Locke tacitly acknowledges that his labor theory of value works fairly (to
everyone's advantage) only in a society and time where no scarcity exists. For in a
a zero sum game. The assumption that one may take for himself while leaving
Paine agreed.
While cultivation may make the land more productive, increasing mankind's
amount of land left in common for others. Land, unlike water or food, is a
distinctly finite entity. While cultivation may bring mankind more corn or wheat
at the market place, this is not a fair trade-off for denial of access to land and its
natural resources by the "common man". Claiming "private property" depleted the
common stock of land and hence the availability of its produce (even if
numerically enlarged) to the average person. This must have been clear even in
76
the 17th Century -- surely Locke could envision a time where all land would be
occupied, just as all Europe was in the 1600s. Paine writes of individual
But the landed monopoly that began with it, has produced the
greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of
every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them,
as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has
thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not
exist before (ibid, pp. 483).
Individual appropriation of land could not help but deplete the common stock
available, and as the better land is always appropriated first, the "enough and as
good" argument falters badly. "On the face of it, scarcity of land blatantly offences
against the sufficiency limitation [leaving enough and as good in common for
others] -- where some have no land, it is clear that 'enough and as good' has not
value of all things we use or possess are a result of our labor, and labor alone. He
does not acknowledge the intrinsic worth of natural resources and in fact stresses
that "the Earth furnished only the almost worthless materials" (Locke, 1960, II,
77
Locke does not indicate a recognition that all we physically are and have; all
things necessary for self-preservation are a result of the Earth's natural resources.
This is where all inherent value lay. In fact, he emphasizes the very opposite. He
states, "Nay, the extent of Ground is of so little value, without labour, . . . " (ibid,
#36, pp. 335) and continues to argue that in Spain land was being given away if
While Locke argues that it is labor that gives things 99% of their value, the
between definitions of "value". For Locke, value means market price, trade price,
Americans, value is what is life-giving, i.e., the continuance of the flowing rivers,
the life around us, plants and animals that support and give us life; the air, the sun,
the Earth herself, and inherently central: the spirituality that in itself creates,
unfathomable. One could not eat gold, nor could it provide heat on a cold winter
morning. The buffalo, the rivers, the Earth: these were the things of value. These
For what good is gold, when the air is so foul that one cannot breathe, when
the fish of the sea turn black from ceaseless dumping, when all water is polluted
78
Earth's surface? Where will the rich buy their air when it is too brown to breathe?
Where will they buy their food when all water has been poisoned? Where will
they place their steps when no unpoisoned Earth remains to walk upon?
We are all, literally, of the Earth. The rocks, the sandy soil; plant life and all
green living, breathing things; the four-leggeds and winged creatures; the sea and
man are of the same origin. This is the very foundation for the concept of
mitakuye oyasin: respect for all humanity, all life, and the Earth herself: for we are
all related.
While labor may make things of the Earth more valuable, the true origin of
their value is in the fact that they exist at all, that they are born of the Earth. All
material items come originally from her; our material bodies come from her.
Regardless, Locke persists. His second "natural" limit on property is that one
may not take so much as will spoil and be wasted, for he that does so harms all
mankind by lessening the common stock. Locke argues that "Nothing was made
by God for man to spoil or destroy" (Locke, 1960, II, #31, pp. 332). One may not
take so much as will waste, as this is an offense to all mankind (note: Locke
tacitly acknowledges inherent scarcity in society here, for if there really were
plenty for all, the apple rotting in the barrel would offend no one).
argues that an individual can now take more than he can use without the hazard of
spoilage, by exchanging goods for these precious metals. He argues, "he might
heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased [gold and silver]; the
79
exceeding of the bounds of his just Property not lying in the largeness of his
Possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it" (Locke, 1960, II, #46,
pp. 342).
his initial limit on appropriation of private property: that one leave enough and as
good in common for others. For if many take more than they can use, and hoard
that wealth in the form of gold and silver, they serve to harm their fellow man, as
they are decreasing the common stock absolutely. It is a world of scarcity, and as
such, if one hoards a great largess there can never be "enough and as good" left in
What Locke unfortunately ignores in his argument against spoilage and the
one -- regardless of how well it keeps -- destroys the possibility of leaving enough
and as good in common for others in any society where scarcity exists. How can
one hoard goods without injury to anyone? With Locke's argument of gold and
private property -- that we leave enough and as good in common for others.
80
Wood goes so far as to argue that it is the introduction of money itself that is
the very foundation of scarcity. "The historical catalyst that effects the transition
from abundance to scarcity is the introduction of money" (Wood, pp. 35). Other
scholars agree.
completely ignores the costs and effects on the individual as well as society of
great social and economic inequalities. While Locke argues on one hand that men
system. He comments not for instance, on why his industrious servant -- the
masses of mankind -- has not the opportunity to become enriched by his or her
own hard labor. Why must one be a servant and receive only subsistence wages if
equality of opportunity truly exists? Why is he unable to freely cultivate and reap
81
Locke firmly argued that one should not take more land than he can cultivate,
and was adamant about this in his dealings with the "American" colonies: for
nothing was given to man to lye in waste, synonymous with spoilage in Locke's
colony, the importance of colonial settlers not enclosing more land than they
could cultivate. For if labor is what begets property, then idle land can belong to
argument, not just against the excesses of the Carolina settler's land claims, but
against those of Native Americans' as well. For if indigenous lands were not
expropriation. The Homestead Act in the 19th century United States was the very
the theory held for Europeans going off to the "Americas", to work "free" land
that would eventually become their own -- through the product of their labor.
oriented. While economic liberty for the individual is a necessity for accumulation
explained away by individualism itself. For Locke, and for the primacy of private
rests solely on the individual. Persons are in poverty due to their own failings –
not social structure. Locke's prescriptions for the impoverished were rather
82
draconian even for his time. He believed the poor should be impressed into labor
at less than the going wage or military service, depending on age and ability (see
chapter 6).
There is no recognition for Locke of the inherent role society itself plays in the
The solution to poverty, according to Locke, rests with the individual. He must
be industrious and thrifty, for if he were, surely riches would follow. It is therefore
a personal failing on the part of the impoverished that bring about that pervasive
and never the systematic one. Use data pointing to why an individual is
83
opportunity). The focus is on the liberty of the individual to be poor or rich, while
This is essentially the private property ethic at its worst. For billions in this world
work ceaselessly and the opportunities to get ahead are few and rarely to be found.
Equality and the right of all people to more than just basic subsistence get lost
in the primacy of liberty and individualism in Locke's theory. Rather than being
the solution to the war of all against all, could it not be true that the inequality
Thomas Hobbes was right. The war of "all against all" exists, but it was the
society that was to end this condition that gave birth to it. Go to any 3rd world
country today: 75% of the world's population will tell you, the war exists. It exists
in capitalist and in communist societies. The war of all against all exists between
the haves and have-nots of the world. And it is society that has created this war;
with a rampant individualism that pits man against man. Extremes of the private
property ethic engage the haves against the have-nots in a zero-sum game; and the
itself. Thomas Hobbes argued that the "state of nature" leads to a state of war of
all against all -- the inception of society ends this war and brings order. I argue
84
that inequality in society breeds exactly what society was born to prevent: the war
of all against all. Society and its inequalities gave birth to the very monster it was
to slay.
humanization of all life around us, including our fellow man. Fear and a lack of
respect are key in turning people toward isolation from one another.
isolates us from our own true selves: from looking within and following our
ethical conscience. Respect for ourselves and others, the most fundamental thing
to being human, gets lost in the primacy of economic liberty and individualism.
At the very basis of this is the private property ethic, where everyone is
"looking out for #1”: where the neighbor's poverty is the neighbor's problem and
no one else's responsibility. A lack of community, and respect for the humanity of
fear keeps us isolated. The homeless wander the streets while a hungry dog has a
better chance of acquiring compassion than does a human whom fortune has
evaded.
The private property ethic has come to mean that while few live in splendor
and largess, the majority struggles ceaselessly. Social and economic inequality,
on the table and a roof over one's head becomes an all-encompassing task. Politics
85
begin to seem insignificant and far away, while the voices of the shrinking middle
class echo against the palaces of the rich. And more people fall into poverty every
day, never to return, regardless of how hard they scramble to try to crawl out. And
commandment for mankind to subdue and hold dominion over the earth translates
into a command to cultivate the soil, using any ensuing product of cultivation for
mankind's benefit. Dominion and subduing, according to Locke, are one and the
same, as it follows naturally that one should have dominion over the soil he has
the Earth. It is agrarian labor and agrarian labor only that he focuses on in his
give one absolute "property" rights in what he takes from the land: the deer, the
elk, the bear, as one has "mixed his labor with it".
86
Unfortunately for Locke, this premise is mistaken. In indigenous societies,
food was shared communally, and all persons involved in the hunt -- all able-
bodied males, as well as those were not: the elderly; the sick; the widow shared in
whatever was taken. Back at the camp, the deer taken in the woods belonged to
nobody yet fed all. James Walker, a physician on Pine Ridge from 1896 to 1914,
records the rules of the hunt, and the rules of communal food, in Lakota Society.
He states,
Rules of the hunt, recognized by all: All must move together. No one
must take advantage to get at the game before the others can profit
from it. If anyone stampedes the game he must be punished. The
meat gotten during a hunt must be fairly and equally divided among
all members of the party" (Walker, 1982, pp. 32).
Locke was wrong. Just as shelter was provided and communal, all food was
shared, and one of Locke's main arguments for private property is undermined.
For Locke argued that, "Thus the Law of reason makes the deer, that Indian's who
hath killed it; 'tis allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labor upon it,
though before, it was the common right of everyone (Locke, 1960, II, #30, pp.
331)". An "Indian" in the "Americas" hunted with his fellow man, and the game
that was taken was shared in common -- among members of the hunt, as well as
the entire tribe. “It was every person's duty to see that the right of every other
person to eat and be clothed was respected and there was no more question about
it than there was about the free and ungoverned use of sunshine, pure air, and the
rain with which they bathed their bodies” (Standing Bear, pp. 124).
87
Those not able to provide for themselves were always taken care of by the
people as a whole, and it was considered a great honor to feed the needy. "A few
honored hunters were selected to shoot for the old, the crippled, the blind and the
sick, . . . (Sandoz, pp. 51). For the individualist ethic of 'I have mine, you get
yours' did not exist in Lakota society. Rather, all human beings equally deserved
to share in the bounty of the Earth and its Creator. All should share in common
For the Lakota, food is always communal "property". To this day on the
reservation, if one kills a deer, people come from all around to take a part of that
meat in order to feed their families, and it is willingly shared. This remains from
the dictum in ancient Lakota society, that as long as there was meat, everyone ate.
forgotten that grace since I became civilized" (Eastman, 1980, pp. 88). The deer
taken in the woods was not the property of the individual who killed it. All were
fed by the meat of that deer, elk, or buffalo, denoted as the property of one in a
theory based upon false assumptions. And although Walker only mentions
dividing the meat amongst the members of the party, in Native American
philosophy and practice, the women, children, elderly and those that could not
rights to territory. Enclosure from the commons, was, for Locke, central to the
88
idea of "private property", as without it, all land was considered a part of the
common stock. "Improvement of the wastes meant for the improvers, as it did for
Locke, enclosure. . . ." (Wood, pp. 63), and, “The foremost argument for
enclosure, shared and constantly stressed by Locke, was the enormous advance in
interest was usually made, often cloaked in the guise of the common interest”
invisible lines of rivers and streams, the enclosure argument essentially justified
the taking of the entire continent by any European willing to enclose and cultivate.
Even if indigenous groups could prove that they did indeed cultivate crops for
general subsistence, Locke's argument of enclosure ensured that they would have
no rights when it came to land tenure. The white man defined land tenure in one
way: any other use of land, however coherent, was denied to the indigenous in the
Americas.
Labor, and cultivation of the land, increases the stock of all mankind in Locke's
theory. It also gives property rights. Contrary to Locke's belief, that America was
an uncultivated area and "waste" land, many indigenous American Nations did
cultivate land, but they did not physically enclose it from the commons. Lewis
Wallace, a great friend of the Haudenosaunee, records that "The Indians of the
Five Nations . . . lived in good houses, built walled towns for their protection and
supported themselves by the cultivation of the soil. Corn, beans, and squash, the
"Three Sisters," formed the staple of their diet, with venison and fish in season"
way of than that of the white man. Rather than clearing huge fields, maize was
planted at various intervals where the sun and the earth could easily facilitate their
growth.
European. They had no need for fences or man-made enclosures, they had no
concept of enclosing ground, as they had no need to: invisible lines separated one
tribe's "territory" from another, and although this was the most frequent form of
dispute among tribes, the territories were basically understood if not accepted.
Their hunting grounds and the right to hunt and gather was their major form of
mixing one's labor with the Earth -- and although they also cultivated (but never
property via agrarian labor in an enclosed area. Hunting, fishing and gathering, the
90
major modes of labor undertaken by indigenous Americans, did not give one any
rights to the land, whether for use or ownership, according to Locke -- his chapter
"property". What cultivation of land was done was either ignored by Europeans
(the earliest owed their lives to indigenous cultivation -- remember that first
A similar false assumption on the part of Locke was his argument that
labour makes the far greatest part of the value of things, we enjoy in this
World; And the ground which produces the materials, is . . . at most, but a
very small, part of it; So little, that even amongst us, Land that is left wholly
to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting, is
called, as indeed it is wast; and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little
more than nothing . . . (Locke, 1960, II, #42, pp. 339).
Native Americans, clearly the land was considered anything but waste. It is the
Mother of all life, a Garden of Eden where they rarely knew want until the
encroachment of the European. All their needs and wants were satisfied and
fulfilled from the Earth and her offspring. The buffalo gave food, shelter, clothing,
tools, even a major heat source (buffalo chips). The land gave berries, roots, and
grains, with only a minimum of human cultivation -- often, none at all. The land
in the "Americas" was fertile, productive, and supported all life indiscriminately.
91
How then, can something this rich and giving be called "waste"? Locke's answer?
It's uncultivated. Locke argues, “For I aske whether in the wild woods and
husbandry, a thousand acres will yield the needy and wretched inhabitants as
many conveniences of life as ten acres . . . that are well cultivated” (ibid, #37,
pp. 336).
I have already pointed out that this was an incorrect assumption on Locke's
manner. Regardless, the forests and plains rich enough to support the life of the
waste and vacant land. Locke states in his chapter on property, "plant in some in-
Perhaps it was the lack of enclosure by the various tribes, the lack of
deserving respect, or just plain greed that gave Europeans the idea that the vastly
population of Native Americans at fifteen million people living in this land that is
called “America” before the advent of Europeans. This is hardly what could be
92
Another problematic conception in Locke's theory of property is that of only
recognizing private, rather than communal, "ownership". Why, one may ask
making it one of the largest landowners in the country. The stockholders of Time,
Inc. are certainly individuals, yet ownership is made up of the group. Groups
rarely have rights, and have had to fight hard for those; but individuals have
rights of property. Why can only individuals own property in Locke's theory? At
the time Locke was writing, there certainly was communal ownership of land in
Laslett, a renowned Lockean scholar, notes the inconsistency. “Here Locke seems
persists. His statements are accurate, but vague, and it is interesting that the words
'Countrey' and 'Parish' are used where 'Manor' might be expected” (Locke, 1960,
93
Native Americans had always held land in common, for use but not ownership.
The idea of individual ownership was inconceivable, even beyond the problems of
the concept of "ownership". The tribe, the people, the Earth, water and sky were
as one family. The idea of an individual seizing land and saying "this is mine" was
were held in trust by the people of a particular tribe for use by future generations.
Locke's arguments for "property" all focus on the individual and "private", not
from the commons and thereby claims private ownership. The Native American
idea of common areas for the group as a whole were diametrically opposed to
implies ownership, and for Locke, individual ownership. The Lakota argue that
the only thing that a human truly owns or "possesses" is his own body: everything
else belongs to the Creator. One cannot own the air, the oceans, the rivers nor the
Earth: they are of the Creator and therefore properly belong to him. We as human
beings are also of the Creator, but our bodies we can temporarily call our own.
to indigenous Americans.
offerings of much more than money every Sunday in the collection plate -- they
are offerings of the only thing we truly possess and hold precious: one's own body.
While Europeans decried these rites as "savage and barbaric", on closer inspection
one finds that every religion, every spirituality has a time of sacrifice for the
Creator. Whether that be the Christian idea of Lent, the Hindus' days of fasting, or
Islams during Ramadan, there is always a time of sacrifice for the Creator.
95
Indigenous Americans, believing all one could offer was what one truly owned,
As far as material goods and land, both the Lakota and Haudenosaunee had
what was essentially a mixture of "personal" material goods for use by the
individual, tribal use of certain areas or territories for hunting and gathering, and
communal material goods, such as food and the essential instruments of life,
Other than the intrinsic "possession" of one's own body, individual tribe
members always had what may be termed "personal possessions" -- their pipe,
clothing, medicine bags, etc. Possibly a song that only they could sing, or a story
that was theirs to tell, could be considered a property right that belonged to that
His food, arms, and clothing, his horses and other livestock, are his
to do what he pleases with: to sell, to give away, even to destroy. He
may have sole right in his tribe to carry some ceremonial object, to
sing some sacred song, to tell some particular story. . . . This is a
property right that is respected by others and one that he may usually
divest himself of by giving it away or selling it (Grinnell, pp. 1).
After death, rights to the "property" of the deceased were shared with the
To the Plains Sioux nothing that was made less by division could be
inherited. A good name, the art and craft designs of such things as
the arrows and the regalia of the men, the patterns for beading and
painting by the women, these were passed on to the heirs, . . .
Everything else was distributed in a Giveaway Dance after the
owner's death. Some special items went to friends or relatives, but
most of the divisible property was handed to the needy and the sad
96
and the unlucky, where it lifted the heart and was of use (Sandoz, pp.
82).
For both the Haudenosaunee and the Lakota, important material goods, such as
the teepee and family belongings (tools and skins), belonged to the woman in each
family and were passed down through the female line. This matrilineal system
was to ensure that the children would always be cared for, as far as shelter,
clothing, food, etc. The men, if alienated from their family, were assumed capable
of taking care of themselves. The children, however, are the future of any people
as a whole, and their welfare must be ensured. "Plains Indian society was a
matrilineal one. The husband joined the wife's people so if something happened to
him as hunter and protector, she and her children would be with relatives, with
people who would care for them, care for their own" (ibid, pp. 58). Walker wrote
that,
system. He argued that "Not the least amazing amongst their institutions, was that
which confined the transmission of all titles, rights and property in the female line
to the exclusion of the male" (Morgan, 1975, pp. 84.) Again, as the women gave
97
birth to and raised the children, their welfare must take precedent over that of the
In Locke's patriarchal and patrilineal society, the absence of such a policy has
led to what scholars call "the feminization of poverty" in the last few decades.
Single parent households, headed by women in absence of the men that were part
States today. And it is the children who suffer -- lack of adequate food and
clothing, and the ensuing loss of adequate education and equality of opportunity
(try taking an academic test when your stomach is growling from hunger and
you're not sure where your next meal is coming from). And this is not to mention
Nations generally insured their children's welfare by ensuring that "property" was
passed matrilineally, so that the women and children were provided for.
Other than personal possessions, some scholars have argued that the idea of
believed they owned the land, and “property" implies ownership. They took from
it what they needed to survive, and gave back to it what they could to sustain it, in
indigenous Americans as "permits to use the land for a term and on conditions"
Land was something one obviously could not own. It was held for
tribal use and for posterity. Sale of land to the Sioux meant sale of
use. When Indians, from Plymouth Rock to Oregon, sold an area
they thought of it as a temporary arrangement. When payment
ceased, the land returned to the tribe, or so they believed as long as
they could. To the Sioux, land, the earth, was revered as the mother
force in the Great Powers from whom all things came. Plainly
nothing could ever be done to diminish this land, nothing to make it
less for all those whose moccasins walked upon it, and for all those
whose tracks were still to come (Sandoz, pp. 83).
ownership of land so they could "buy" it from its "owner". Writing in 1907,
Grinnell explains,
Until within comparatively recent times, all land sales and all
treaties have been make by the Indians on the theory that they were
passing over to the white people certain rights of occupancy -- were
lending them the use of the land . . . ; yet the Indians looked forward
to a time at the end of the loan when the land should be returned to
them (Grinnell, pp. 4).
99
Even in the case of tribal "hunting grounds", they were not absolutely the
through their domain was allowed to take what game he needed to survive while
passing through, but no more. The respect for human life took precedent over any
Fredrick Engels studied the Haudenosaunee and what he termed their "system
Property and the State, he argues that "A man in need of food when in another's
trapping [or hunting] area could even kill beaver, a most important fur-bearing
animal, but he could not kill one in order to sell the fur" (Engels, pp. 20). Further,
it is argued that,
the assumption that privately held hunting tracts were aboriginal was
questioned by the Canadian anthropologist Diamond Jenness, on the
basis of his work among the Ojibwa and the Sekani Indians, and by
Julian Steward, who found evidence of their late development . . .
Detailed archival and field research . . . showed that the hunting
ground system had indeed developed as a result of the fur trade, and
further, that it did not involve true land ownership. One could not
trap near another's line, but anyone could hunt game animals, could
fish, or could gather wood, berries or birchbark on another's grounds
as long as these products of the land were for use, and not for sale
(ibid, pp. 19-20).
The Haudenosaunee, those "fierce warriors" indigenous to the east coast of the
United States, believed that sustenance for human beings was more important than
Yes, these tribes did engage in warfare against others, and the
100
Haudenosaunee, the conquered were asked to join the Confederacy or be driven
from their lands. "When about the year 1651 the Iroquois had conquered the Eries
and the 'Neutral Nation', they offered to accept them into the confederacy on equal
terms; it was only after the defeated tribes had refused that they were driven from
their territory" (ibid, pp. 159). Even historical "enemies" were recognized as
Similarly, the Lakota also allowed other Nations to camp, hunt and fish on
their "territorial" spiritual grounds -- the Black Hills of South Dakota. Chief Red
Other tribes went to the wilderness health resort [in the Black Hills],
and the Sioux did not molest them when they pitched their tepees, . .
. . They hunted the deer and the elk and the bear which had been
placed there in abundance by the Creator to provide meat and fur for
his children (Red Fox, pp. 22-23).
Land use in indigenous society was intrinsically for the continued existence of
all peoples, not only those of the local community. For in Native society, the
Luther Standing Bear notes, "To the Lakota every other individual in the tribe was
as important as himself and it was his duty to preserve the identity of the tribe"
(Standing Bear, pp. 67). A Lakota's duty was to preserve and protect the
community -- even at the expense of their own life. While individuality and the
right to follow one's conscience were adamantly respected, the good of the
community was the first concern of the traditional first Americans. The "people",
101
in the form of the community, live on forever, while individuals live and die. Such
order that the "people" would continue to survive. Never to let another go hungry
while others feasted, the Lakota and Haudenosaunee believed that food was
sacred: it was a gift from the Creator and Mother Earth and was to be shared. It is
the staple of all mankind. "Indians do not have to be reminded to feed the hungry,
clothe the poor, or to give shelter to those in need. They do it instinctively and
sincerely, and with pleasure" (Red Fox, pp.30). To keep food from one that is
hungry is to deny them air to breathe, the earth to stand upon, or a drink from the
When food was brought into the village, the sharing must be equal
for old, young, sick, disabled, and for those who did not or could not
hunt as well as those who hunted. There must be no hungry
individuals; so long as one had food, all would have food. There was
never the hungry on one hand and the overfed on the other. All
shared food as long as there was any to share (Standing Bear, pp.
69).
the long house". Their name itself is a reference to their communal way of living,
102
their communal households, and their communion with all life. For in a
Six Nations -- six separate tribes -- being one people under one communal "roof".
It is a reference back to the idea that "we are all related" and share the shelter we
For the Haudenosaunee did not live in portable housing as did the Lakota.
Rather, they build permanent long wooden structures, much like the European's
house but longer, wherein several families would live. Each family had its own
fire (its own area) in the long house, and frequently four or five families would
live together under one roof. Everyone was housed in this way, and as such,
The Lakota too had a belief in the importance of sharing in common those
things necessary for the sustaining of human life. If a teepee was needed, the men
in common provided the hides, while the women worked together to tan and sew
them into shelter for the needy. Shelter was always available and provided for
103
One of the major premises of Lakota and indigenous philosophy generally
comes into play here. For it is he who knows how to give that is considered rich,
he who is poor in material possessions wealthy, and he who knows how to share
possessions.
It is important to note, that the "giving" ethic applied to all facets of life for the
indigenous American. If a marriage was to take place, a baby was born, in honor
of the dead, and in honor of the living, "give-aways" took place, as part of the
traditional ceremonies of the people. Rather than receiving presents upon special
occasions: births, marriage, death, one gave away gifts to their fellow community
members. Hence, just as with the circle of life, material possessions were
This is truly the ideal of a communal economic system, and for the first
Americans -- it worked.
But herein lies the real proof of the communal ethic among Native Americans.
For obviously, if one gives away all they possess, they would have no blankets to
lie upon, to stay warm at night, no buffalo robes to warm their bodies during the
day, no tools or material possessions with which to sustain human life. One
instilled with the same giving ethic. Hence, often one would give away
everything, only to have the necessities and other possessions given back to them
104
by others in society. Material possessions, then, truly became communal, as they
In any truly communal situation, not only individuals have standing in the
struggle to survive, but just as important is the survival of the people as a whole.
For indigneous Americans this was an inherent part of the balance necessary to
where the individual is recognized and "the people" are not; where Social
Darwinism: the survival of the fittest, natural selection, man against man, the
born, it was the responsibility of the entire community to raise him or her. Lakota
children were always given "second parents" at birth, to facilitate the instruction
and raising of the child. "The children in a real sense belonged to the group as a
whole; an orphaned child suffered a personal loss, but was never without a
family" (Engels, pp. 33). If a child went down the wrong road, philosophically or
child back on "the red road" (the path of indigenous spirituality and community
communal order (ostracism), argues, "In any case the ostracism was a sad thing, a
community failure" (Sandoz, pp. 34), as all had a responsibility in raising the
105
young to follow that "red road". And just as the community had a responsibility to
against man, the haves against the have-nots, effectively isolating us from the
first", to be competitive, and not to risk compassion for one's fellow in need. We
are taught he is down and out because of an inherent fault within -- blame the
individual, never the circumstances, and certainly not the social structure. As Karl
Marx aptly remarked, "circumstances make men, just as much as men make
106
As the Lakota recognize, the true cause for corruption and greed in an
"bad apples" in the human race, just bad circumstances. Because human beings
have reason, they also hold within them the capacity for ethical knowledge. That
capacity must be nurtured and developed by the community or society for the
life, summarized our separation from each other and our world succinctly.
If I were a tree among trees, a cat among animals, this life would
have meaning, or rather this problem would not arise, for I should
belong to this world. I should be this world to which I am now
opposed by my whole consciousness and my whole insistence upon
familiarity. This ridiculous reason is what sets me in opposition to
all creation. . . . And what constitutes the basis of that conflict, of
that break between the world and my mind, but the awareness of it?
(Needleman, pp. 255)
We are set apart, as individuals rather than an inherent part of the whole, because
our consciousness separates us from our world. The Lakota, the Haudenosaunee,
and most indigenous groups never separated from the world -- they understand
that they are an inherent part of the whole -- that in Camus' sense they are the
world. They are not differentiated from it or other members of their community by
107
Further, in Native American society, while recognizing the importance of
community, individual conscience was at the same time respected. Morgan writes
independence and boundless freedom" (Morgan, 1962, pp. 139). For in indigenous
society, the individual could never be forced to go against his or her conscience in
any decision -- following one's heart, and making the ethical decision, took
precedent in tribal life. However, the idea of the continuance of the life of "Indian
peoples" (as they call themselves), the community, and the Nation, was, and still
continuance and health primarily of those they personally love. This is usually
individual family line that one has a responsibility to care and provide for, not the
moral dictate.
This, unfortunately, is the individualist ethic at its worst, denying the very
essence of community: to care only for one's family while tens of thousands of
For why shouldn't the United States feed the world when it has such an
overstock of grain that farmers are often given government subsidies not to grow
108
corn or wheat, in order to keep prices high (by keeping quantity low). Is this not a
travesty to the entire human race, when people are dying daily from want of bread
For indigenous Americans, it is not an individual family line that they seek to
preserve for the future: rather, they attempt to ensure survival of "the people" as a
whole, the future of all generations to come, blood-related or not. While this may
in antiquity have been a clan, i.e. a family group, the Haudenosaunee numbered
over 20,000 individuals and dozens of tribes in the time period in which they
survival for future generations focuses on protection of Mother Earth rather than
increasing personal material wealth. For it is only she who can ensure life and
For in indigenous society there was recognition that material wealth is far too
tenuous and fleeting to provide a sense of security to two-leggeds. For how secure
when the Earth's forces could demolish it in seconds? There is never enough
material wealth to provide true security: hence greed's insatiable nature. For one
can never have enough money or material possessions to be secure in this world.
Rather, for the Lakota and Haudenosaunee, the survival of all generations of
the future is insured through protection of the life-giving forces: the water, the
109
heavens, and the Earth. As long as the Earth was tenderly cared for, as long as the
water flowed and the four-leggeds graced the Earth with their presence, security
for future generations of all people was ensured. For in a land of such plenty, how
could anyone be left without those things necessary to sustain life? It was
inconceivable to the indigenous American that scarcity could abound when the
To deny to one's fellow man those necessities to sustain life -- food, water,
shelter -- is to deny that all life is related. It is to deny the necessity of balance and
harmony to continue the circle of life. To serve solely oneself while one's
The belief, elaborated upon below, that one cannot continually take without
among all things was and is a primary goal of each individual and the life of the
Nation. To create harmony one must always give to others what they are in need
of to sustain life, if one has the capability. James Walker argues that,
Food was indeed considered communal, as the staple of all life, as the right of
110
Under the operation of . . . a simple and universal law of hospitality,
hunger and destitution were entirely unknown among them. . . . He
[the Iroquois] would surrender his dinner to feed the hungry, vacate
his bed to refresh the weary, and give up his apparel to clothe the
naked. No test of friendship was too severe, no sacrifice to repay a
favor too great, . . . With an innate knowledge of the freedom and
the dignity of man, he has exhibited the noblest virtues of the heart,
and the kindest deeds of humanity . . . (Morgan, 1975, pp. 328-9).
fellow humans, was the concept of giving back to the Earth for the gifts she
endlessly endows upon us. This follows the indigenous idea that one cannot take
endlessly from the Earth, the Creator, and Creation itself, without destroying the
balance necessary for the continued existence of all life. Perry explained this
The white man does not understand. One portion of land is the same to him
as the next, for he is a wanderer who comes in the night and borrows from
the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and
when he has won the struggle, he moves on. He leaves his father‟s graves
behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children. And
he does not care. The father‟s graves and the children‟s birthright are
forgotten by the white man, who treats his mother the earth and his brother
the sky as things to be bought, plundered, and sold, like sheep, bread, or
bright beads. In this way, the dogs of appetite will devour the rich earth and
leave only a desert (Gifford, pp. 39).
One must never take anything without giving something back. This is the very
basis of balance and harmony. The scales must weigh evenly. By taking without
giving back, we deplete resources for future generations. Young Chief, a Cayus
Indian, said "The Great Spirit, in placing men on the earth, desired them to take
good care of the ground and to do each other no harm . . ." (McLuhan, pp. 8). It is
111
the rule of Karma; from the other Indian religion. It is Newton's third law of
We must give back to the Earth. For indigenous Americans, a part of any food
taken from the Earth: whether roots, cultivated maize, berries, buffalo, deer or elk,
was always returned to as an offering of thanks for her endless gifts. At each meal,
a special plate was prepared and set outside as an offering to the spirits and the
Earth, thanking her for her bounty. Lewis Henry Morgan stated of the
Haudenosaunee, “It was also their custom to return thanks to the trees, shrubs and
plants, to the springs, rivers and streams, to the fire and wind, and to the sun,
moon and stars; in a word, to every object in nature, which ministered to their
wants, and thus awakened a feeling of gratitude” (Morgan, 1965, pp. 164).
worship of the object itself. They rarely took time to understand that all life, all
objects, are a part of the Creator's gifts of creation. The Native American believed
Tobacco was often used as a “gift” to Mother Earth, a pinch being put out and
inavailability (especially for the plains‟ tribes). One always gave back to the Earth
what one considered precious or sacred -- tobacco and food are but small
examples. One gave what one considered precious, for a sparing giver was no
giver at all. And one always gave back to all the relations a part of what one took
112
And when the [buffalo] robes were tanned, painted and worked with
dyed quills or trade beads, the finest one of all was taken to the top
of a hill and left there as a gift of gratitude offered to their brother,
the buffalo, because so many of his relations had died to feed his
brother, the Indian, who would, in his turn, die and feed the grasses
(Sandoz, pp.54).
Tobacco offerings were given at sunrise, to thank the Creator for the new day
and the Earth for her bounty, and at sunset the same ritual of prayer and thanks
was repeated. As Sandoz observed, the human body after death is even returned to
fertilizing the Earth with our bodies' decay. The respect and appreciation shown
by Native Americans for the gifts of the land were marked as deep upon them as
what is life-giving: the sun, the water, the clean air, and most importantly, Mother
Earth herself as the sustainer of life. While Locke argues that it is labor that gives
all things their value, and that nature has provided only the almost worthless
materials that man may mix his labor with, indigenous Americans disagree.
Sreenivasan argues, "Since the original natural materials had some use (value) in
their common state, the complete product does not represent labour's contribution
to the common stock." (Sreenivasan, pp. 56). Native Americans would take this a
step farther. All value comes from Mother Earth, not our labor. It is she who
furnishes all the materials we need and use in every facet of our lives. While labor
113
might make materials more valuable, it is the fact that we have anything to work
with at all that holds true value. Hence, a "Earth-centered" theory of value might
All living and non-living things have the Earth as their mother, as all life
depends upon her bounty to grow and subsist -- from bacteria to plants to animals
and man, all life exists through her. Plants, through nourishment and water in the
soil, carbon dioxide in the air and the process of photosynthesis from the sun grow
and prosper. These plants provide nourishment for herbivores, and through
nourishment, water, and the air necessary for life, young herbivore turns adult and
begin the cycle of life again through procreation. Herbivores provide food for
carnivores. As human children, it is food from the Earth, plants and animal life,
water and air, which allows us to grow into adults. When our bodies die and
decay, they provide nourishment for the soil, which nurtures the plant life, and the
cycle begins again. We, through the chain of life, are literally of the Earth -- our
bodies are of her, as it is her bounty that changes us into adult human beings and
sustains physical life. Labor may have made her bounty more useful, but
at all.
Geology explains how the Earth herself, through internal dynamic processes
called tectonic movement, continually works to renew the circle of life. Batholiths
of granite reach to the sky only to be eventually eroded into the sandy beach and
washed out to sea. Dense oceanic tectonic plates submerge under the more
114
buoyant continental plates, moving down into the Earth's mantle and eventually
becoming hot molten magma. The magma then cools in the earth's interior, only to
once again reach the surface in either a molten state, as volcanic lava or extrusive
igneous rock, or during the constant uplift Earth‟s mountain chains experience.
Geology thus explains how the Earth herself is involved in a continual cyclical
processes, ever regenerating, ever renewing. As with the life upon her, she herself
J.E. Lovelock put forth the theory of the Earth as a self-regulating entity in his
theory of "Gaia". He found that the "chemical composition of the atmosphere and
of the oceans was biologically controlled" (Lovelock, pp. x) by the Earth herself.
He states of his initial research, "Our results convinced us that the only feasible
explanation of the Earth's highly improbable atmosphere was that it was being
manipulated on a day-to-day basis from the surface, and that the manipulator was
life itself" (ibid, pp. 6). He continues, "thinking about life on Mars gave some of
us a fresh standpoint from which to consider life on Earth and led us to formulate
a new, or perhaps revive a very ancient, concept of the relationship between the
Earth and its biosphere [emphasis added]," (ibid, pp. 8). He concludes,
The result . . . was the development of the hypothesis that the entire
range of living matter on Earth, from whales to viruses, and from
oaks to algae, could be regarded as constituting a single living entity,
capable of manipulating the Earth's atmosphere to suit its overall
needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its
constituent parts (ibid, pp. 9).
115
As geologists will argue, the Earth is a dynamic entity capable of regulation of the
oxygen content of the atmosphere and the saline content of the oceans.
The common ancestry of all life on Earth. Native Americans have known this,
that we are all related, for thousands of years before Darwin read his first bible.
Not only do the natural sciences reinforce and legitimize the ideas that all life on
earth is related, by being of a single origin; but as well that the Earth herself is a
the life that is of her origin. As indigenous Americans will argue, the whole is
an Earth-centered conception of value. All we have and are come from Mother
Earth. All physical life comes from her, as do all material possessions. The
implications are three-fold. First, that we are all related, and hence are all
brothers: the oceans; the granite of the mountain top; the four-leggeds, and man
116
are of one origin. Secondly, that the Earth herself is a dynamic entity, capable of
constant regulation of herself and her environment. Locke was wrong. Man has
not dominion over the Earth, the Earth has dominion over mankind, a mere link in
the circle of life. She must be sustained so that life is sustained. And finally, that
in order to build this sustainable future, “value” in the 21st Century desperately
needs to be redefined in terms of the Earth. These fundamental differences are the
undercurrents that sweep away any similarities between indigenous and Lockean
generations. We literally hold the fate of the Earth, and all life on and within her,
in our very hands. The rights of future generations, when it comes to the
current generations.
or in a sense, trustees, for the future generations of all life to come. Rather than
mankind having dominion, the indigenous American understood that our place is
117
a humble one, as caretaker of the Earth, so that she may support the generations to
come. In our humility, we must recognize that we are but two-leggeds: fallible,
and vulnerable. Our reason is of value but must always be tempered by ethical
The Earth is to be respected as are all our relations, as all have a right to life, to
her bounty. We, as the rational species, hold in our hands the fate of all life on this
us to protect her for all generations of life that is to come. Indigenous Americans
recognized these principles: that all value comes inherently from the Earth, and
without her resources, mankind's labor is meaningless. Value comes not from
capital nor principally from labor: rather it is inherent in the very Earth we walk
upon. Her concerns must guide our actions,or the road to ultimate destruction
There is one last point about Locke‟s chapter on property that must be
118
Locke's incorrect use of the word "King" in describing Native American
warm before the coming of the European, enjoyed a quality of life unknown to
wage laborers in 17th Century England. What they enjoyed was a fullfilled life. A
life filled with happiness and prosperity of a kind that Locke could not even
Pascal, the French philosopher once said that all the evil in the world comes
from not being able to sit quietly in a room. To do so requires peace of mind,
harmony of spirit, and fulfillment of the void we all encounter inside. In the 20th
and 21st centuries, power, greed, fame, and wealth: these are our weapons against
I have continually discussed, that wealth -- true wealth, is a quality that comes
from within. It comes from fulfillment of that void. For Pascal, there was only one
way to fill it. He once argued that in every man there is a God-sized void, which
only God can fill. The Native Americans were rich in that fulfillment -- and had
harmony and oneness with the Creator and all of Creation. It was as intuitive and
inherent as one's own heart. The separateness we feel in mass society did not exist
in a time and place so long ago lost. Quality of life comes from within -- this we
know. It is highly doubtful that a Native in America suffered more than a day
119
laborer in England. For "What is Life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is
the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across
the grass and loses itself in the Sunset" (McLuhan, pp. 12).
120
CHAPTER V
DEMOCRACY RE-DEFINED
Democracy. Everybody is for it, everybody wants one, and in the United States
we believe we live in one. But what does the term democracy really mean?
Certainly it is a much more entailed concept than that of its literal Greek
translation, "rule by the people". For after all, who are "the people": a limited
minority; a disassociated majority: the few who participate in the voting process
or all citizens at large? What components are inherent to the concept of legitimate
encompass the concept of freedom that we so often associate with the term
“democratic governance”?
the above framework will allow? Could democracy encompass some kind of
affairs translates into actual influence on the part of those governing? Should
121
democracy encompass its original promise: of rule from below, of the people
themselves legislating important matters, rather than the "rule from above" that
we have come to expect in a republican system? Could political equality, the very
cornerstone of democracy, be re-translated, from the very limited "one man one
Further, should action be taken to terminate the vast economic inequality that
cannot help but undermine political equality? Or will "democracy" forever remain
a system where the majority are politically disenfranchised, while the few hold
dear a choice between a limited elite while no substantive alternatives are
realistically available?
regardless of the fact that the vast majority of its inhabitants were not considered
"citizens", and held no electoral or political rights; nor the civil liberties and
order.
El Salvador, ruled by brutal military regimes for decades, could (and is,
according to the U.S. State Department and the major media) also be considered a
"ARENA" (known locally as "the death squad party"). This “democratic” choice
so lauded in the U.S. media, comes from the brutal period from 1979 to 1990,
where more than 75,000 mostly unarmed civilians were beaten, tortured, raped
and murdered by their country's armed forces at the bequest of this "democratic"
122
Clearly "democracy" is a much more complex concept than just that of
competition between political parties and regularly scheduled elections. Any state
the parties in question? Can new parties be created with ease, and are minor
parties able to voice their opinions and allowed access to the mass media? Do new
social ideas have equal and immediate access to the public forum, where they are
allowed to whither or bloom on their own merit? Do all citizens have equal
influence over government, no one more than another, regardless of economic
disparity, race, ethnicity, sex, age, disability or religion? And to facilitate the
democratic process, is there an independent judiciary and a truly free and diverse
the political arena. All must have equal access to the political debate and the
developing agenda. Voting once every two years, and being presented with a
choice between two idealistically similar candidates, does not a democracy make.
In fact, Noam Chomsky argues that "a capitalist democracy is, at best, a very
a one-party state, where the ruling party has two factions that
compete for control of the government. U.S. political history is, to a
significant extent, a history of conflict among those in a position to
make investment decisions; . . . . The general public is afforded an
opportunity to ratify elite decisions, but the option of participating in
making them is limited, very largely, to privileged elites (ibid, pp.
117-118).
123
In other words, the choices presented to citizens in a representative form of
government such as the United States‟ are so limited as to make very little
representative form of government, it can be argued that the two major competing
parties‟ platforms are more similar than different. Both support the essential
the expense of these peoples; and a minimun of welfare assistance (in the sense of
substantial change in the quality of life for the majority of its citizenry (such as
meaningful health care reform, subsidized housing for the elderly and
impoverished, etc.). Essentially, the choice presented, between elites who merely
For a wide range of political parties that truly represent the citizenry is
among the elites to be chosen from? Where is the middle-class, and the working
poor? Who represents the myriad of the impoverished: be they elderly, sick, or
“democratic” election.
124
Voting every two to four years itself is a very limited form of participation.
making process. As the Lakota and Haudenosaunee have shown, when all voices
are admitted to the public forum, not only do new options present themselves, but
more people are satisfied whatever the outcome, simply because their positions
probably the most fundamental is that of political deliberation that includes the
- in fact, that has been their worst fear. For at the core of political repression is the
become empowered to fight for their rights and liberties and those of others.
Aristotle believed that only in the political arena can we achieve the mutual
This intrinsically includes the mutual exchange of different ideas, the very
paradigmatic activity of political virtue and self-rule. Only those that deliberate
ensure a diverse conversation about the common good" (Gilbert, pp. 337). Why is
allows individuals the opportunity to fully examine diverse options on what, for
them, would create "the good life" -- not that of material largess, but rather a life
that is led in an ethical manner. A "good" life is one where persons can develop
It is only through the political arena that real diversity of views are espoused,
considered and debated, and through this process, spread among the citizenry. For
there are few other areas in our lives where true diversity of views can be
experienced. In other sectors of life; family, church, school and peer groups, we
tend to be close to those who hold similar viewpoints to our own, hence real
There is a definite link between political deliberation and the ability for an
individual to fully develop as a human being. For where else will widespread
place that can contain the widespread differentiation of the world views of 6
It is typically through political discourse that new perceptions and ideas are
allowed to take seed, grow and prosper. The universal condemnation against
slavery, an institution accepted as "a natural state" in the world of men for
thousands of years, began with a few small (yet radical) voices making themselves
heard. Once they grew loud enough to reach the ears of the political arena, these
ideas came to be debated among the masses and then within the legislature.
norm, and resulted in condemnation of the system and then the viability of the
institution of slavery world-wide. And it is only in the political arena that these
radical new ideas, great differences of opinions, and multitudes of views on any
issue can be brought to the forefront to be debated amongst the people. Moral
127
What is "moral progress"? It is when society begins to condemn
rather than the use of diplomacy; condemns prejudice against persons based on
their uniqueness or difference from the majority that moral progress is being
persons and instead demands to implement those changes necessary in order for
Those that argued for an end to war as the means to settle disputes, those that
cry out as the rainforests -- the Earth's oxygen factory -- are burned to make room
for cattle, those that were abolitionists when slavery was the norm, those that
advocated guarantees of equal rights for homosexuals were (and in some cases
"foundations" of society. Soon after, such radical concepts were put on the
debated among the people and change, positive change was implemented.
to grow richer from the outpouring of diverse ideas, and a "common good",
whether through the search for individuality or the advent of moral and social
progress, which can translate into social progress as more diverse ideas become
"accepted" by democratic society. Social and therefore "moral progress" brings the
democracy and the search for individuality are intrinsically connected and
inherently linked.
organizing. Yet this has very limited influence (in the majority of cases) on actual
decision-making.
Clearly participation must be expanded beyond the act of voting for the term
domain of the elite. Some kind of political equality, then, becomes an intrinsic
its conceptual definition and thus make the term more meaningful.
the concept are satisfied by the interpretation of “one man, one vote”. This is the
vote is counted as equal to the CEO of the corporate farm‟s vote. Theoretically,
129
But does this hold true when confronting the actuality of representative
government? Does that individual family farmer have the same political influence
lobbyists, the campaign contributions, the sheer clout, to have access to his
representative‟s ear? Certainly the CEO can accomplish this. And until the CEO
and the family farmer have the same access and political power, political equality
more than another. This would require that all citizens, not solely elites, would
have access to the public forum; to the decision-makers; and the opportunity to
Clearly campaign finance reform would be central, as big money tends to lead
influence. Gilbert argues that a more just democratic system can be achieved, even
democracy, good leaders must remain followers. Their first and foremost
responsibility is to act in a way that furthers the common good, rather than their
own personal good. This is their undeniable responsibility, and any violation
should be met with immediate impeachment and removal from public office.
Rousseau argues that a government employee (and they are employees of the
citizenry),
For the representative that follows his own or corporate mandates is undermining
Many social theorists, from Aristotle to Rousseau and Rawls, have further
kind of meaningful democracy. All argue that the ability to participate equally in
democracy. Locke agreed with Aristotle, in his views that only property-owners
Aristotle argues, “The best form of state will not make the mechanic a citizen. .
achieved by those who are free from menial duties” (Aristotle, pp. 108). ". . .
Aristotle believed deliberation to require strict equality. For Aristotle, not only
131
households; they must also be the same in their general capacities, . . . " (Bohman,
pp. 109).
Theorists have argued that Locke believed only in political equality for citizens,
as the necessary ingredient in any just political system, never the importance of
social or economic equality. But if we the above argument a little farther -- that
the political deliberation inherent to a just political order), this implies that
Aristotle believed economic equality, as well as social and political equality, are
intrinsic to a deliberative political system.
hence those with similar economic means) should be citizens, i.e., political equals
with equal votes. Can this not be interpreted as an inherent recognition by John
While scholars have traditionally argued that Locke believed only in political
equality, the above argument, if applied to Aristotle, can certainly be made about
John Locke. For Locke tacitly recognizes the importance of economic equality in
order to achieve democratic ideals. Unfortunately, for Aristotle and Locke this
meant only those with property should be citizens, while for Rousseau and Marx,
it meant that all citizens should be property-owners. For the Lakota and
Haudenosaunee it meant that all should have equal access, no one more than
the United States lose their political rights to participate simply because they do
not have an address -- and one cannot vote without an address in the United
States. Their loss of political rights is a direct result of their impoverishment.
132
Further, on a more day-to-day note, if one is struggling just to put food on the
table and keep a roof over one's head, participation in politics becomes a kind of
luxury one rarely has time for. Gutman & Thompson agree that without the basic
Political theorists from Aristotle to Marx have convincingly argued for the
necessity of enough leisure time so that the citizenry may be fully and equally
educated to all political options and agendas, and may therefore participate more
fully. Sufficient leisure time is possible only if all have access to basic economic
necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter and health care, so that all have the
ability and interest to participate. Accurate knowledge and enough free time to
educate oneself on the issues and opinions of a diverse citizenry are intrinsic to a
133
For without the basics in life: food and clothing, shelter and warmth, one‟s
interest in the political arena is a low priority. Surely if you are struggling to live
from paycheck to paycheck, these concerns are more immediate than political
deliberation that may have little or no effect on decision-makers. The time to fully
participate is a luxury for those citizens struggling to feed their families. Karl
constitutions and the reality of civil society, showing that within existing social
institutions civil rights are not achievable by all citizens” (Bohman, pp. 9-10).
I have discussed in previous chapters why and which economic guarantees are
essential to a just society. Food, clothing, clean air and water, shelter, health care
and warmth in the cold are the minimum human necessities that each person
surely deserves access to, by virtue of their humanity alone. Out of a vast pool of
resources, this kind of economic guarantee for individuals and families would
way to redistribute wealth to create a more just society, while the cut would
scarcely be felt by the population at large. Workers could be re-educated into non-
military production.
John Rawls argues that in order to create a society where economic inequality
134
it is not just that some should have less in order that others may
prosper (Rawls, pp. 14-15).
A clean wiping of the slate and equal distribution is not necessary -- but the basic
bounds of any "private-property driven" society itself, and as such, interferes with
Karl Marx believed that social and economic inequality is a necessity -- in fact,
society, as it provides a ready pool of cheap labor for the industrialist. He states,
"The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its
growth, and therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the
productiveness of its labor, the greater is the industrial reserve army" (McLellan,
pp. 54). Such disparity in wealth leads to disparity in political influence. Marx
explains how our social, economic and political relationships structure our
individual consciousness.
Each of these theorists, and many more, argue that economic inequality cannot
help but undermine political equality in a democracy. What then can be the
objective of democratic society, if not to give its citizens politically liberty and
equality?
Alan Gilbert argues that "A liberal theory claims broadly that the best social
and political arrangements are those most favorable to the pursuit by each
individual of a good life, just as she sees it, so long as she does not harm others"
(Gilbert, pp. 4). This, according to Gilbert, is the end for any democratic society,
individuality.
disparity does not undermine the ability of all to participate in the political arena.
136
realization of the promise of social interaction and deliberation promoting each
representative of the population; accurate information via a truly free (and not
individual or group rights, in order to promote liberty for all. Yet at the same time,
tolerance, and respect for diversity in every person. For liberty and equality are the
foundation of the formation of diversity and individuality that is the true end of
any democratic system.
resources and equal access to the media and therefore the population at large.
Political equality, in the form of equal influence rather than just "one man one
vote", and equal access to the political debate are further inherent necessities,
Democracy is clearly a much more elaborate concept that just that of voting
every two years for competing political parties. It requires citizen participation
and deliberation on a day-to-day basis. Any democratic society must be under the
people's control and not that of economic elites and corporate mandates. If we try
Clearly, in the 21st Century, we must look openly and objectively for a more
CHAPTER VI
138
LOCKE’S POLITICAL PARADIGM
In his first two chapters of the Second Treatise, Locke begins laying down the
Locke begins with the concept of political power. Government, politics and
power naturally go hand in hand in Locke's theory. Locke argues, “Political power
then I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently
all less penalties, for the regulating . . . and preserving of property . . . and all this
only for the public good” (Locke, 1960, II, #3, pp. 308).
Similar to Max Weber's definition of the state, 'that entity with a legitimate
monopoly on force', Locke accepts that politics, power and force are an inherent
For the Lakota and Haudenosaunee, politics is not about power. It is not about
force, nor preserving private property in society. Rather, the purpose of the
Earth and all of her manifestations. Harmony was the very objective of political
society and the reason for its existence. The use of power and/or force always
disturbs harmonious equilibrium. "The primary goal of religion and politics was to
achieve harmony between all elements -- the land, plant and animal life, and the
139
Hence, persuasion was the sole weapon of elders, holymen and headmen.
Locke's arguments as espoused in the Two Treatises are the very foundation for
representative democracies of the 20th and 21st century. The treatises are a
separation of power, and the right of revolution if government usurps its duties.
His writings have become, in essence, the very heart of liberalism as a political
doctrine -- that theory that argues for individual liberty, economic liberty, and
representative government as the basis of civil society. The enormous effect of his
The question of why Locke wrote the Two Treatises has been a matter of
debate among scholars for centuries. One of Locke's main purposes was to
contradict Robert Filmer. Filmer had argued that government was based on a God-
given mandate to Kings, and therefore absolute authority rested with unopposible
authority over the world, and Kingly authority was derived through Adam's
lineage. Locke adamantly disagreed with Filmer, and found important flaws in his
argument.
even if Filmer could show that Adam had received absolute powers
over others, to complete his argument it would still be necessary for
him to prove that the English kings had inherited these powers. It
would still be necessary for him to trace the succession from Adam
140
to Charles II, a task which, as Locke easily shows, is completely
impossible (Aaron, pp. 275).
A refutation of Filmer was clearly one of the objectives of the work. The First
states,
that government can be based only on consent of the governed. Both authors agree
that in a "state of nature", men banded together for protection, and agreed upon a
social contract: an agreement of how to create a just society. Both agree that this
original contract to unite for mutual preservation was the real basis for civil
society, and hence the source of political authority. Where Locke and Hobbes part
ways is in the question of the extent of power held by the sovereign. For Hobbes,
both the social contract and the sovereign are absolute. Once agreed upon, men
did not have the right to withdraw consent, even if the sovereign usurps his duties
For Locke, usurpation of power by the sovereign returned to the citizenry the
withdraw that consent if those in positions of authority usurp power. Dunn argues,
141
"As we have it today, the Two Treatises is a work principally designed to assert a
Hence, Locke's argument that men in a state of nature are subject to a state of
war of all against all, holds true as well in civil society. For if leaders usurp duties
and powers, they put themselves in a state of war with the people. For with an
absolute sovereign in power, the war of all against all is indigenous to society
itself. As Locke states against Hobbes' absolute sovereign, "[It} is to think that
Men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what Michiefs may be done them
Lions" (Locke, 1960, II, #93, pp. 372). Further, "If the rulers themselves
threatened civil peace and order, their subjects would have every right to judge the
degree and immediacy of the threat and, if this seemed sufficiently serious, to
It has been long debated whether the Two Treatises were written as a
justification for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, before or after the
revolution. What is clear, is that the work is a justification for the implementation
142
of the parliamentary rights -- a constitutional monarchy -- that was the focus of the
Revolution.
Locke's doctrine of the right of resistance was further used as a justification for
the American Revolution, as the writings of Thomas Jefferson will attest to. His
in their relationship with Great Britian, formed the very basis for dissent. His
government acts in its particular, rather than the common, interest, was central to
the arguments Jefferson incorporated in the Declaration of Independence. Ashcraft
argues,
For when even a legitimate leader breaks the law of nature (and reason is that
law according to Locke), he threatens the common good itself. “The law of
reason and equity is the tie which God has given men to secure them from injury
Regardless of why is was written, Locke's work has had an enormous impact
on 20th and 21st Century political systems. From the intractable right to
entity usurps power, today's western republics are a clear reflection of Lockean
theory.
143
Locke never elaborates on the details of the political system his paradigm
espouses. Rather, he gives only a broad outline of what that system would
legislature selected through consent of the people should hold supreme power,
implementation and enforcement, i.e. executive power. Majority rule was to be the
returned to the people who may dissolve the government and institute an new one
in man's ability to act rationally. Mankinds' laws in society must therefore reflect
that capacity.
One of its [the Two Treatises] central arguments was that men were
supposed to be free because that was appropriate to their status as
rational individuals. It is this combination of the assertion that
individual men are responsible for their own actions and should be
free because of their capacity to reason, with the limitation of
political authority to the preservation of individuals' property,
including their liberty, that gives rise to the classic view of Locke as
a founder of liberalism [emphasis mine] (Marshall, pp. 217).
Any man who puts himself under a despotical government goes against this
natural law of reason. "To consent to place oneself in that position would be to
144
Generally, Locke discusses two essential duties of government: protection of
property; and the dictate that it rule only for the public good. How does
the defect in Locke's position is that he does not discuss the case of
the individual who, for one reason or another, finds the restraints
imposed upon him by the community unjust, a violation of what he
conceives to be his individual rights. What if the dictates of a man's
conscience and the civil law conflict (Aaron, pp. 285)?
is to make its voice heard in the decision-making process. The majority can never
force the minority to surrender inalienable rights: such as life, liberty and
property, without due process of law: as men would never consent to this
harmony. Hence, all decisions were made by consensus, never majority rule. If
145
consensus could not be reached, the decision had to be set aside. A member of the
political debate. And as respect for following individual conscience was a key
For both Locke and indigenous societies, formulation and rules of political
society are legitimate only when based upon consent of the governed. For Locke
this consent derives from the original social contract, which man having made in
the state of nature, remedies the vast inconveniences of having no objective
arbitrator for disputes. In such a state of nature, each man is judge and executioner
in his own disagreements, and man, holding self-love foremost, will always be
biased in his own favor. Hence the inherent inconvenience of the state of nature,
Consent is the very mortar of society. Locke argues, "the beginning of Politick
Society depends upon the consent of the Individuals, to joyn into and make one
Society; who, when they are thus incorporated, might set up what form of
government they thought fit" (ibid, #106, pp. 381-2), and further, "Men being, as
has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be . . .
subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent" (ibid, #95,
pp. 374). Only through consent is governmental authority legitimate, and only
146
In civil societies political authority rests in the last instance on
agreement, on consent. . . . On any given occasion in an absolute
monarchy most of its inhabitants may well have a duty to obey the
holder of political power, if what he commands is at the time
beneficial or if disobeying him will cause pain and danger to others;
but the holder of political power has no right to command his
subjects. Only the agreement of adult human beings can give
another human being political authority over them [emphasis mine}
(Dunn, 1984, pp. 49-50).
acknowledges the civility reached in these societies nor their incredible ability to
While the Incas may have been south of the indigenous territory discussed,
147
Acosta‟s work on the Incas of Peru, arguing “And if Josephus Acosta‟s word may
be taken, he tells us, that in many parts of America there was no government at
all” (Locke, II, #102, pp. 379). Yet in the same paragraph he continues,
reports from the Carolina settlers. Yet apparently Locke chose to ignore such
reports. While arguing that only cultivation of land yields ownership, and that the
Regardless, while Locke outlines his ideas of consent and his "right of
political system. Rather his idea is to espouse the necessary ingredients for a
mostly conceptual and generally not detailed. What we do know about Lockean
government, majority rule, separation of powers, and the right of revolution as its
148
fundamental goals. A truly revolutionary document, the Two Treatises began a
Liberty was important for Locke. True political liberty, virtually unknown in
his day of aristocratic decrees and government by Divine Right, allowed for
interest, and to allow individual liberty in the fullest sense, individuals had the
opportunity to prosper in both a personal and social way. Individual liberty then
translated into a good for the society as a whole, as society progresses. Gough
argues,
Locke states,
For John Locke, "true" or "radical" democracy, i.e., where all persons can
great distrust of the masses. In the 17th century in which he wrote, the majority of
the world's populace was illiterate, poor and property-less. Fear that the masses, if
allowed to participate democratically, would simply vote away the rights and
149
property of the elite, was a prevailant concern. Somehow, government must
Europe, so too was the idea of universal suffrage. The citizenry itself had to be
Dunn agrees. The Leveller and the Chartist movement were groups who
campaigned for the endowment of all persons under government with full rights
of citizenship: not just those with landed property.
One is to limit the citizenry to those who hold property interests in common. The
Those with common interests -- property – will elect the representatives, not
the masses. While everyone must give his consent to society, not everyone need
according to Locke, and hence were not a necessary part of the citizenry.
Further, "in this [preservation of property] we have the original right and rise of
both the Legislative and Executive Power, as well as of the Governments and
But it is not all property that give men the right to participate. Initially defined
as life, liberty and estate, in the context of who would make up the citizenry,
Locke focuses on estate. It is ownership of land that separates the citizenry from
151
In his Letter on Toleration, Locke more clearly defines the kind of property he
preserved by pains and industry; for those things that are necessary
to the comfortable support of our lives, are not the spontaneous
products of nature, nor do offer themselves fit and prepared for our
use . . . . [Men entered society] that by men have also their temporal
lives here upon earth; . . . they have need of several outward
conveniences to the support thereof, which are to be procured or
mutual assistance and joint force, they may secure unto each other
their properties, in the things that contribute to the comforts and
happiness of this life . . . men thus enter into societies, grounded
upon their temporal goods . . .[emphasis mine] (Locke, 1990, pp.
57-58).
Locke implicitly leaves out the ideas of life and liberty in the above statement
as part of his definition of property. Since every man has a property right in his
life and liberty, according to Locke, insistence on landed property as the basis for
citizenry in civil society is quite problematic. What about the masses, who held
little or no material possessions, nor land? For surely those without estate enjoy a
personal property interest in their lives and liberty. Yet for Locke, the property-
less masses had to claim land, enclose and cultivate it, in order to be granted the
For Locke, those without landed property were in such a position due to their
own failings. His philosophy toward the poor, in fact, was somewhat draconian, as
process was not only allowed, but expected from all interested parties. Decisions
were never made until all voices were heard and all opinions given sincere
few was an anathema to democracy. How can the people rule, if the people‟s
direct democracy, where each decision is voted on by the entire populace, was
considered not only impractical, but also dangerous by Locke: too much power in
the hands of the property-less masses. To insulate the government from the
people, decisions can be made by legislators and the real effect not reach the
constituency for years, or even decades. Many times, the constituency has no idea
of the long-range effect on public policy – witness the massive military build-up
under Ronald Reagan and the ensuing national-debt disaster that was predictable.
It is easy to push your position and downplay the consequences and/or opposition
when you are holding the power and your voice is heard by many. For Locke had
in mind that the elite in society should be the major decision-makers: logically,
most decisions would then be in the interest of the elite. Representatives of the
153
propertied-citizenry were to use their own judgment, clearly, rather that simple
Although Locke argues for “consent of the people” as the basis for
“republic”, “the people” are defined as the few, while “consent” is manipulated
from an elected legislature. As I argued earlier, infrequent voting for a bare choice
also limiting power in government. He was well aware of, and explicitly
all, too much power in the hands of decision-makers created the repressive
supreme power of the land, with an executive branch to enforce decisions. Both
were to work through majority rule. Seats were to be elected on a frequent basis so
that there was a consistent opportunity to remove and thus restrain the power of
for the whole. In other words, it‟s the representatives that actually participate in
decision-making, while the people need only give their consent. Locke states, " . .
154
. in a Constituted Commonwealth, . . . there can be but one Supream Power,
which is the Legislature, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet . . .
there remains still in the People a Supream Power to remove or alter the
Further, only acts by those given a grant of power by the people, the Legislature,
have "the force and obligation of Law, . . . . For without this the law could not
have that, which is absolutely necessary to its being a Law, the consent of the
Society, . . . ." (Locke, 1960, II, #134, pp. 401). Hence the legislature, retaining
power via the force of the consent of the people, retains the supreme power of
ideals.
155
The Lakota and Haudenosaunee people had, long before Locke was even born,
necessary check on the tendency for power to corrupt those that wield it. It is
argued in the following Chapter that the “founding fathers” of the United States
even visited and studied the Haudenosaunee to learn of their unique system for
established concept in their societies well before the first shots of the
theoretical system. For the power to both make and execute the laws, men
behaving out of self-love, easily leads to usurpation of power and tyranny. One
way to avoid the abuse of power was to simply divide the legislative from the
to limit power was revolutionary for western European societies of the day.
Generally the monarchy held the privilege of making and executing the law, and
arbitrary abuse was widespread and commonplace. In fact, for western societies
(because Native American groups had already incorporated the idea of separation
of powers in their traditional political system centuries earlier), Locke may have
been the initiator of the idea of separation of powers. While Montesquieu details
separation of powers almost 200 years later, Locke began the process with his
insistence on separation of executive and legislative branches in order to avoid
156
usurpation and tyranny. Gough argues, "As long ago as 1836, however, a German
writer, Carl Ernst Jarcke, detected in Locke the originator of the doctrine of the
body from the legislative or executive. Although Locke never explicitly discusses
the judiciary, "He seems to include it in his executive power, which is concerned
with the whole administration of the laws" (ibid, pp. 108). Grant apparently
agrees. She argues that the separation of executive and legislative branches
includes the idea of an impartial avenue of appeal, i.e., a judicial sector.
The executive power of government, at least for Locke, then has twin
disputes.
motivation (such as re-election) nor specific agenda for public policy. Democratic
theorists, such as Alan Gilbert, have argued that a free and independent judiciary
157
Generally, the legislature need not be continually in session in Lockean theory,
as laws can be made in a short period of time. The executive branch, on the other
But because the Laws, . . . have a constant and lasting force, and
need a perpetual Execution, or an attendance thereunto: Therefore
'tis necessary there should be a Power always in being, which should
see to the Execution of the Laws that are made, and remain in force
(Locke, 1960, II, #144, pp. 410).
executive prerogative -- that ability to act for the common good without the
prescription of law. Locke argues, "Where the Legislative and Executive Power
are in distinct hands, . . . there the good of the Society requires, that several things
should be left to the discretion of him, that has the Executive Power" (ibid, #159,
pp. 421).
His reasoning is twofold: that the legislative body is not continually in session,
while the executive is, and therefore some discretion must be left to the decision-
consuming process. Some decisions must be made quickly, such as action in war
158
laws to provide for, all Accidents and Necessities that may concern the publick; . .
. " (ibid, #160, pp. 422). Hence, his argument for the necessity of executive
prerogative.
For Locke, although limits on the "tyranny of the majority" were intrinsic to
government, majority rule was the only practical and just way to choose
representatives and to legislate. Once the social contract is formed, every person
obligates himself to abide by the decision of the majority. He argues, "And thus
every Man, by consenting with others to make one Body Politick under one
government, puts himself under an Obligation to every one of that Society, to
submit to the determination of the majority" (ibid, #97, pp. 376). Further,
Clearly for Locke, without majority rule government would be inefficient and
For that which acts any Community, being only the consent of the
individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to
move one way; it is necessary the Body should move that way
whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the
majority; or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body,
one community, which the consent of every individual that united
into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that
consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see that
in Assemblies empowered to act by positive Laws . . . the act of the
Majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, . .
. the power of the whole. (Locke, 1960, II, pp. 375-6, #96).
And while we typically think of indigenous Nations at that time being small and
While for Locke the majority holds power to act for the whole, the government
own interest rather than that of the common good. Here Locke‟s true genius
shines, and this argument has probably been his major contribution to political
theory. For Locke, contrary to Hobbes, argues absolutely for the right of
revolution and institution of a new government if that existing usurps its duties
and ceases to act for the public good. The social contract remains, yet government
is dissolved "from within" by its own citizenry. They then have the “natural right”
Locke's arguments for the right of resistance brought about a new paradigm in
social theory. His writings have had the effect of creating dramatic change in
societies throughout the world. His arguments were the very foundation of the
throughout Western Europe in the 18th through 20th Centuries. His arguments for
the right of returning power to its original source if government usurps its duties
are eloquent and inspiring. The effect his work has had on people and states
throughout the globe has been enormous.
160
Used in part by Thomas Jefferson to assert the rights of man in the Declaration
For Locke, the foundation of the right of revolution is that the usurpation of
power by those entrusted to govern actually returns society and the individual to a
state worse than that of the original state of nature. In a state of nature, each has
the right to defend themselves: in a state of tyranny, all natural rights are
jeopardized. Government has in fact returned society to a state of war, where there
is no longer an objective arbitrator for disputes. "For where-ever any two Men are,
who have no standing Rule, and common Judge to Appeal to on Earth for the
determination of Controversies of Right betwixt them, there they are still in the
state of Nature, and under all inconveniencies of it, . . . " (ibid, #91, pp. 370). In
fact, not only do they live in a condition with no just arbitrator for disputes, but a
compared to the natural rights we enjoy in the state of nature: life, liberty and
state of war inherent in the state of nature. For as Locke states, "the Person of the
Prince by the Law is Sacred; . . . . unless he will by actually putting himself into a
State of War with his People, dissolve the Government, and leave them to that
defense, which belongs to every one in the State of Nature" (ibid, #205, pp. 450).
But although government may put itself into a state of war with its citizenry, it
while the social contract remains intact. The people are then empowered to return
power to its original source. What original source does power derive from? The
citizenry.
The people are then at liberty to institute new government. Locke reaffirms,
"For wherever violence is used, and injury done, though by hands appointed to
administer Justice, it is still violence and injury, . . . the Sufferers, who having no
appeal on Earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such Cases, an
appeal to heaven" (Locke, 1960, II, #20, pp. 322). In other words, it is between
society, but regardless, a usurpation or tyranny can inherently lead to either. Force
by conquest from a foreign power can lead to the dissolution of society, of the
social contract as a whole. Force without right by the governing elite is no better:
162
yet it leads only to the dissolution of government. Neither, however, could
between a "foreign" and a "domestic" invasion, either in terms of the use of "force
Remember, for Locke, participation in the political process was not intrinsic to
If society itself, and hence the social contract, is dissolved, it is generally from
without: when conquered through war with a foreign nation. Locke states, "The
usual, and almost only way whereby this Union [political society] is dissolved, is
the Inroad of Foreign Force making a Conquest upon them" (Locke, 1960, II,
#211, pp. 454). Once society is dissolved, government clearly cannot remain, and
When does the government dissolve from within? Dissolution from within is
govern. This can be done by either the legislative or executive power. Locke
Hindering legislative power, via its function as the branch of government most
the people. Locke argues that "'tis in their Legislative, that the Members of a
commonwealth are united, and combined together into one coherent living body.
163
This is the Soul that gives Form, Life, and Unity to the Commonwealth: . . . (ibid,
The legislature is dissolved when changed or altered. When rule is made and
enforced by "Arbitrary Will in place of the Laws" (ibid, #214, pp. 456), the
When the Legislative is prohibited from acting freely or assembling "in due
time" (ibid, #215, pp. 457), the legislature is altered, as removing legislative
legislative is altered. Locke states, "When by the Arbitrary Power of the Prince,
the Electors, or ways of Election are altered, without the Consent, and contrary to
the common Interest of the People, there also the Legislative is altered" (ibid,
As people consent to the social contract only of the society in which they
reside, that power can never be transferred into other hands, i.e., a foreign power.
For the social contract is based on men's securing unto themselves their life,
liberty and estate, and "this is lost, whenever they are given up into the Power of
the legislative, so too can the executive be the cause of dissolution. When the
the executive dissolves government. ". . . The breach of trust, in not preserving the
Form of Government agreed on, and in not intending the end of Government it
self, which is the publick good and preservation of Property. . . . a King has . . .
put himself in a state of War with his People" (ibid, #239, pp. 474).
164
Laws cannot function without their administration, and without laws, there can
the Supream Executive Power, neglects and abandons that charge, so that the
reduce all to Anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the Government" (ibid, #219,
pp. 459).
people. It is the rightful duty of the people to erect a new government that will
rule only in the public interest.
The contribution that Locke made to not only political theory but to the actual
world of the 17th through 21st Centuries has been absolutely enormous. Witness
the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and even the Russian
revolution. Locke gave them the justification they needed while creating the ideas
that legitimized them. Locke's views on the right of revolution were not only
revolutionary in and of themselves but a major catalyst for world change. As the
first political theorist to claim for the people the right of dissolution, removal and
the Second Treatise that his theory was too radical: that as a result of his
arguments, men everywhere would rise up and initiate violent revolution at the
165
slightest provocation; that anarchy would generally prevail if we were to believe
Locke; and societies everywhere would collapse and fall in a torrent of civil war.
What will stop men from formenting revolution over minor disputes with the
leadership of society?
Locke believed that men generally will suffer greatly before they resort to
extreme action, and only the greatest of usurpation's will bring about such a state.
"Locke admits the right to rebellion. . . . To the objection that this will make for
unsettled government, Locke answers that the people are usually very loathe to
rebel, that they will suffer much before they resort to force" (Aaron, pp. 283).
Dunn argues that, "Locke certainly wrote to proclaim a right of revolution; but he
was not in any sense an enemy of political authority. Within its due constitutional
limits political authority was an immense human good "(Dunn, 1984, pp. 51).
Locke, in fact, did not always believe in the right of revolution for the
citizenry. His views changed and developed over his life-time, and as he became
more involved and less welcomed in 17th century British politics, his outlook
changed dramatically.
The change in Locke's position comes clearly from his involvement in politics at
the time. His original orthodoxy changed when Charles II, a Catholic, took the
British throne. Locke's skepticism that a Catholic should hold legitimate rule over
an Anglican state led him to believe that the people should hold the right to
institute government based on consent. His writings and ideas became so seditious
Regardless, his views on consent and the right to dissolve and institute new
governments are enormously compelling and have had a positive effect on the
inalienable right to institute government via consent, and to remove that consent if
necessary, have led to more just political institutions in the 21st Century.
167
Locke's Second Treatise has had a tremendous effect on today's western
both majority and governmental power, and the right of resistance to unjust
authority, Locke's political ideology is essentially the basis for the western
capitalist republics that comprise the "First World" today. Locke's ideas of
path of social progress. To limit power by dividing it was an idea unknown in the
European world of his time, although well-known in the indigenous world of the
Although Locke‟s ideas have been enormously influential, many of these same
ideas had been incorporated into indigenous societies long before Locke ever
wrote the Treatises. While Lockean and indigenous political ideas have many
ruling for the common good, and consent as the basis for government, many were
in conflict.
Locke agreed that government should act in the best interest of the people,
although there is some question as to who would be considered "the people" under
consent of the governed. The social contract was for them never absolute: if an
168
individual or group split from the tribe, he and his family, and whoever wanted to
go along, could start a new band with the help and support of the old one.
However, for the two indigenous groups, all persons in the community had not
duty to participate. As decisions were to be made for the common good, only the
input and deliberation of all perspectives could achieve this very high ideal.
Women, children, elders, and men, all had a say in the decision-making process.
For the Lakota and Haudenosaunee, harmony, not preservation of property is the
basis of the political system. As harmony was the ideal, decisions were never
based on majority rule: majority rule always left a dissatisfied minority. Rather,
decision by consensus was the governing principle of the political system. And if
consensus could not be reached, then the decision was put aside, for further
deliberation.
For Locke, leaders: the legislative and the executive, were never in a position
with Civil Society" (ibid, #90, pp. 367). Leaders were to serve the interests of the
public good, and absolute power is generally opposed to the better interests of the
For the Lakota and Haudenosaunee, power never left the hands of the people
Sachem had no power to command an individual, much less the group. They were
169
Typically, a consensual decision could be arrived at that was believed to be in
the best interest of the people. Since all persons had a part in decision-making,
decisions tended more often to reflect the good of all rather than that of a few.
group.
philosophies.
Although Lockean philosophy was truly revolutionary for its time in many
aspects, Lakota and Haudenosaunee philosophy, practiced for a time period much
longer than that available for Lockean theory, has many similarities in its attempt
170
CHAPTER VII
Our strength shall be in union and our way the way of reason,
righteousness and peace. --Deganawidah, the Great Peacemaker8
Locke, such as majority rule, limits on the constituency and their power, and
that was inclusive of all points of view was the centerpiece for establishment of
Council members were elected by the people, and were considered men of great
wisdom and intellect who had proven their generosity and courage. A system of
checks and balances and separation of power was firmly in place, insuring that
and duty to the people. Any leader who acted in his own rather than the common
interest was removed from office, if not persuaded to change his ways.
Majority rule was not a tool for indigenous democracy, as majority rule always
leaves a dissatisfied minority. Decisions were made by consensus, and the people
171
could usually come to agreement on the path that was in the best interest of the
nor forced to act upon it. Further, all had the "leisure time necessary", and were
women played key roles in the political organization of society. Both Lakota and
than Locke‟s conceptual system. For they possessed a unique and influential
system of pure democracy that made Athens, Greece look like the aristocracy it
essentially was. In Athens, during the "democratic" period, only white male
few elite. Women, merchants and artisans, craftsmen and skilled workers, and of
course slaves and the impoverished were excluded from the "democratic"
life, liberty and estate) versus harmony as the end of political society is indicative
property the end of human life, or is it harmonious living? With such different
The Confederacy of the Haudenosaunee was one of the few available models
of democracy in the 17th and early 18th centuries, having an important influence
172
on the "founding fathers" of the United States. Historically, it is known that
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine all studied the
world where monarchies and tyrannies were the order of the day. Benjamin
Franklin is known to have argued, "'It would be a strange thing if (the) Six
Nations should be capable of forming . . . such a union . . . and yet a like union
the Constitution of the United States. We, the People, as the governing institution
in society; separation of powers; and checks and balances, were all well instituted
into the Confederacy's governing system long before the "founding fathers" of the
One of the little known secrets of the Founding Fathers is the fact
that they discovered a democratic model not in Great Britain,
France, Italy, nor any of the so-called "cradles of civilization".
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others found the oldest
participatory democracies on earth among the American Indians. . . .
American Indian Agent George Morgan . . . witnessed societies
where people were endowed with the right to speak freely, the right
to assemble, religious freedom, as well as the separation of
governmental powers into three branches. A system of checks and
balances was firmly in place (Schaaf, pp. 3).
economic system have, like Locke's, had tremendous influences on 20th and 21st
influence on the founding fathers of the U.S. in creating a democratic society, they
too had an important influence for the founding fathers of communism. Just as
173
thought, Marx and Engles studied the Haudenosaunee‟s pure communal social
democratic principles that governed the Nations within the Confederacy -- a total
of about 20,000 individuals in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Jennings, pp. xiii), are
valuable examples of extensive democracy, where all participated equally and all
equality, in the sense of every person enjoying equal influence in the decision-
Further, both the Haudenosaunee and Lakota believed that everyone had a right
to share equally in Mother Earth's bounty; hence, the very structure of society
It has been argued that Native Americans had no political system, nor a
practicing government. I will spend little time on this debate, as I will argue that
From the time of first contact between Europeans and Indians the
ideology of Europeans has insisted that tribal Indians had no "true"
174
government because Indians ordered their communities by kin
relationships instead of the impersonal, bureaucratic European state
form. Only Europeans, in this view, had "civil" government, so only
Europeans were civilized. . . . Such assumptions have plagued
scholars to the present day, but the kings' agents in America knew
how to distinguish between theory and practice. They understood
very well that Indians were organized in communities with
functioning governments that exercised real powers of control over
trade, territory, and military activity. These agents called the Indian
governments "nations" and made treaties with them to take
advantage of those nations' controls and powers. The treaty
documents refute the no-true-government myth on their face. These
texts show colonial and imperial statesmen formally recognizing
Indian chiefs as peers -- "brethren" -- with power and responsibility
to act on behalf of their nations and to fulfill contracts. Recognition
of, and purposeful interaction with, Indian political organizations is
fully in evidence (Jennings, pp. xiv-xv).
There is one other academic conflict to be resolved. Morgan argues that the
Confederacy were installed to preserve the peace. Around them sprang up a class
given the titles of "Chief". While the Sachems preserved the peace, the Chiefs
Sachemship was hereditary according to Morgan, but only in the sense that a
vacant Sachemship had to be filled by a person from the specific gens (clan) that
the deceased Sachem belonged to, in order to continue the equitable distribution
of the 50 Sachemships in the League. This insured that each clan of a particular
individual Nation held at the time of League inception. Even though there may
175
have been have a disproportionate number of "Sachems" per tribe in the League‟s
Council, each individual tribe counted as one for the purposes of voting, i.e., each
To contradict Morgan, the person to fill the vacant position was elected by the
argues that "The tribes retained the power of designating successors, independent
of the [sachems] . . . " (Morgan, 1975, pp. 115). Engels notes, "The gens (clan)
elects its sachem (head of the gens in peace) and its chief (leader in war). The
sachem had to be chosen from among the members of the gens [hence its
hereditary nature] . . . All voted in the elections, both men and women" (Engels,
pp. 148). Charles Thompson, the secretary for the United State's Continental
political leaders do not acquire their positions by heredity but by election, . . . '"
people, the position dying with the individual's reputation or death. The office was
"bestowed in reward of public services, thus casting it by necessity upon the men
highest in capacity among them" (Morgan, 1975, pp. 101). Thus Chiefs were
"raised up" (elected) by the people due to merit alone. This, of course, is the very
Although Morgan argues initially that the Haudenosaunee political system was
democratically but only within the same clan as the previous Sachem had
belonged), by the end of his work he argues that their system was more
democratic than that of ancient Greece. He states, "The former [ancient Greece]
retained many elements of aristocracy, while the latter [the League of the
(Morgan, 1975, pp. 140), and further, that "It is, perhaps, the only league of
nations ever instituted among men, which can point to three centuries of
Other scholars argue that the League was a shining example of democracy in a
elected the sachems themselves, while the Council reserved only the right to
were elected by the respective gentes whenever a vacancy occurred and could be
deposed by the gentes at any time; but the right of investing them with their office
belonged to the federal council" (Engels, pp. 157). He further emphasizes the
democratic nature of the political system, where every voice was heard in Council
177
meetings, and everyone's opinion respected. "The meetings of the council were
held in the presence of the assembled people; every [emphasis added] Iroquois
Iroquois, came into existence between 1000 A.D. and 1450 A.D. The League,
League for the double purpose of acquiring strength and securing peace, their
capacity for civil organization, and their wisdom in legislation were favorably
The Six Nations did not always enjoy peace and democratic government.
Around five hundred years before the arrival of Columbus to the Americas, terror
reigned in the life of the Haudenosaunee. It was a time of killing for vengeance,
and vengeance for killing. "All order and safety had broken down completely and
the rule of the headhunter dominated the culture. . . . [there was] a spiral of
Great Peacemaker, moved among the people, advocating the idea that "all human
beings possess the power of rational thought and that in the belief in rational
thought is to be found the power to create peace" (ibid, pp. xvi). Further, "people
fear and hatred" (ibid, pp. xix). Eventually, the Peacemaker's proposal of bringing
peace to these warring nations inspired the creation of the League.
178
The League of the Haudenosaunee was based on the idea that all humans
possessed rational thought and therefore the ability to use that inherent
Initially, the League contained only five Haudenosaunee Nations, while the
sixth, the Tuscaroras, joined the League in about 1715. The Council of the League
consisted of 50 Sachems -- leaders, from each of the original five nations of the
Haudenosaunee; the Mohawk, the Seneca, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the
Oneidas. Although the numbers of Sachems per tribe were diverse, each nation
had only one vote on any Confederacy issue, as well as a veto upon the other four
nations. The individual tribes were otherwise self-governing, as the League did
The Sioux Nation originally resided in the area of what is now called
eventually were forced across the Missouri and on to the plains of Nebraska,
South and North Dakota. Eventually the one Nation divided into three bands, each
with its own distinctive dialect: the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota.
The Lakota Nation, once on the vast prairies of the Midwest, for unknown
situation), then divided into seven different bands; the Oglala, Brule, Blackfeet,
Hunkpapa, Minneconjou, Sisseton, and Yankton; the Oglala being the largest of
the seven. The word “Oglala” means literally “to scatter one‟s own”, although its
organization which gathered once a year for political and ceremonial purposes.
179
They [the Lakota] also speak of themselves as Oceti Sakowin, . . .
which means the Seven Council Fires, and indicates that they
considered themselves as one tribe divided into seven gentes
[bands], each gens governed by its own council, and the tribe bound
together by a kind of confederacy. . . . The only binding force of this
confederation was that no one of these clans [bands] should be at
war or enmity with any other, . . . (Walker, 1982, pp. 15).
The governmental organization of the Seven Council Fires and that of the
individual bands within the Nation were similar, each consisting of tribal councils
The political arena for both groups essentially was based on one concept.
Just as the indigenous American seeks as the most fundamental goal in life
establishment of harmony with all things, so the end of the political arena reflects
this philosophical precept. Harmony was both the basis and the end of political
society, and of life itself for the indigenous American. Harmony among Mother
Earth, the Creator and his creations were central to Native American societies in
general: these were a everyday part of life so imbedded into society and the
psyche that it was anomalous to think or act in any other way. "The primary goal
of religion and politics was to achieve harmony between all elements -- the land,
plant and animal life, and the human community" (O'Brien, pp. 15).
180
Walker observed, “all formal [political] deliberations took place around a fire, the
coals from which were used to light the pipe whose smoke brought the minds of
men into harmony with one another and with the gods” (Walker, 1982, pp. 12).
What is harmony? If human life is the music, then harmony is that inspiring
melody that arises when each is in tune with one's self and with all others. It is the
peace and fulfillment within us when our own inner void is filled with the
connection to the Creator and the world. It is knowing we are never alone: that all
our relations are with us, and that the Creator is all-present, all-pervasive. Living
in harmony, which necessitates living spiritually, was life for indigenous peoples.
whole is recognized as more than just the sum of its parts. If even one player is
out of tune, there can be no harmony, and then all suffer. Hence, indigenous
decision-making was key. Majority rule surely could not be the way to make
decisions, for how can harmony flourish if 49% of the people are dissatisfied with
the policies of the other 51%? Engles notes, "Among the Iroquois the final
decision had to be unanimous, . . . " (Engels, pp. 154-155). Morgan observes that,
All the sachems of the League, in whom originally was vested the
entire civil power, were required to be of „one mind‟, to give
efficacy to their legislation. Unanimity was a fundamental law. The
idea of majorities and minorities were entirely unknown to our
Indian predecessors (Morgan, 1975, pp. 111).
member of the tribe who adamantly disagreed with said decision. Minority rights,
i.e., the supremacy of individual conscience, was well respected within Lakota
tribal and confederacy decisions be unanimous meant that leaders had to consider
and balance all viewpoints. In the Iroquois League, rule by council consensus did
not mean rule by a few or even by a majority, but rule by all" (Morgan, 1975, pp.
20).
For the Haudenosaunee and Lakota, all aspects of social and political life were
discussed in civil councils. Morgan argues that "nearly very transaction, whether
and that further, "Sachems, chiefs and warriors, women, and even children,
deserted their hunting grounds and woodland seclusion's, and taking the trail,
literally flocked to the place of council" (ibid, pp. 110). Hence, political
deliberation at its most inclusive level was an inherent part of day to day life for
- women and children included, over four and a half centuries before European
women were given the same privilege. All opinions were heard, discussed, and
respected.
Nations; arbitration of disputes; "when a camp should move and where it should
move to, and the order of moving; when hunting parties should go and what
territory such parties should hunt in; and advised as to the distribution of proceeds
of a hunt" (Walker, 1982, pp. 30), as well as when to go to war, and who against.
In the Lakota camp, the largest tipi had no living occupants, rather, it was
specifically reserved for council meetings among the people. "A large tipi is
erected in the hocoka [camp circle], . . . which is called the tiyotipi. No one lives
in the tiyotipi. The chiefs and headmen sit in the tiyotipi to council about the
affairs of the camp and the people" (Walker, 1982, pp. 22).
The council tipi was the public lodge of the camp, where all
communal gatherings were held, and all business of common
interest to the camp was transacted. If business of importance was to
be done, a fire was made on the fireplace of the council lodge, and
this was known as the council fire. Business transacted about the
council fire was of the nature of legislation . . (ibid, pp. 23).
Not only were all members of the tribe allowed to participate politically in the
affairs of the tribe, but it would have been unthinkable not to voice concerns in
political councils in traditional indigenous societies. The "council" for the Native
being that all citizens gathered to express their opinion when political decisions
were being deliberated, or at least sent a speaker to discuss the concerns of those
who could not attend. Chiefs, warriors, women, even the young, those under 18,
were able to voice their concerns in tribal decision-making. Further, each of these
183
involvement in the day to day matters concerning the tribe was considered an
The Lakota were self-governors, and the rules and regulations that
governed the conduct of people and established their duties as
individuals, families, and bands came from a great tribal
consciousness. Deep within the people, mingling with their
emotions, was an inherent sense of solidarity -- a tie between one
and all others . . . (Standing Bear, pp. 124).
In Lakota society, when any council of import was held, "it was announced to
the village, an old man stopping in front of each tipi calling 'Omniciye kte lo!'
This apprised the men of each tipi that a council was to be held" (ibid, pp. 127-
tribal concern formed “Civil societies”, and orators for each society spoke before
the tribal council freely. Women participated through forming the same civil
councils to address their issues. Women's concerns and opinions were always
society. All who had an opinion were allowed to speak or expected to send an
184
orator to the council meeting to express concerns and opinions, where they could
be deliberated openly.
For both Nations, ruling was centered on the concept of service. Leadership,
rather than giving a person an advantage over others, i.e., power, consisted of
responsibility: of a duty to act in the people's best interest, for the common good,
while one's own interests' lye fallow. Further, it was a leader's duty to see that all
in society were well fed, clothed and sheltered, even if that meant giving of one‟s
own possessions.
Bear insists, that "only the finest of men became chiefs" (Standing Bear, pp. 132).
He further argues that "most of them [Chiefs] were men who gave their best
abilities, even sacrificed, to be of service to their fellows" (ibid, pp. 132). They
were typically persons with great wisdom, and great oratory skills, as
demonstrated throughout their lifetime. "They could never order, only persuade.
Leaders lacked the power to dictate or to enforce their decisions. Their rule
depended on their performance, their powers of persuasion, and the respect they
the crier, always some old and very judicious and respected man,
hurried through the camp with any news or warnings of danger, . . .
or proclaiming the council's decisions. And they were decisions, and
not orders, for no Sioux could tell anyone what to do [emphasis
added]. The only position a Sioux inherited was his membership in
the tribe. He became a leader, a chief because some were willing to
follow him and retained his position only as long as the following
remained (Sandoz, pp. 29).
was that of persuasion. A leader gained that position by gaining a reputation for
185
wisdom, courage, bravery, or generosity. The people recognized a leader as such
only while he maintained these qualities, and could choose another at any time.
Those elected were chosen because of personal wisdom, generosity, and clarity
of thought and vision. "A headman achieved his position by possessing family
powers gained through dreams or visions" (O'Brien, pp. 24). Further, "A chief's
authority depended on his wisdom and ability to carry out his wishes [persuasion,
tell another individual what to do, as respect for personal autonomy was
considered intrinsic to harmonious living. Rather, leaders possessed only the use
“Power”, once again, was never a tool to be used in the political arena. Rather,
186
power was turned on its head and defined as responsibility. For responsibility
signed by a tribal elder, was not binding to all members of Lakota society -- only
those that were signatories or who agreed to agree were bound by treaty. This was
government treaty was signed saying that two indigenous Nations would live
peacefully with each other, it bound only signatories, not the rest of the tribe. If a
warrior, following his own conscience, felt he had to retaliate for harm done or
whatever the reason, it was his or her right to do so, regardless of paper
arraignments.
Individual liberty, then, was at its height in indigenous society. The right of an
individual to follow his or her heart, i.e., one's own conscience -- was absolute.
The individual was presumed rational, ethical (for one cannot live in harmony
without following a strict ethical code), and capable of an astute sense of justice.
After all, "A society that has no locks can tolerate no thief, without paper or other
easy record of man's word it can tolerate no liar, and no troublemaker if there is no
jail, no prison. Such a society must orient its young very early" (Sandoz, pp. 43).
Individual conscience, and its twin sister individual liberty, in the fullest sense of
that word, were clearly and adamantly respected -- as was individual decision-
making. Standing Bear, an Oglala Sioux, recalls that, "the council made no laws
that were enforceable upon individuals. Were it decided to move camp, the
187
decision was compulsory upon no one. . . . However, in most matters a decision
that was favorable for one was favorable for all" (Standing Bear, pp. 129-130).
All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they
were bound to defend each other's freedom; they were equal in
privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no
superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties
of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated,
were cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material,
because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system,
the foundation upon which Indian society was organized.. . . It
serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity
universally an attribute of Indian character (Engels, pp. 151).
If tribal members adamantly were against a decision, they could simply refuse
to act on it, or they were allowed to go off to other territories and start a new band
of Haudenosaunee, with the help and comforts of the original band. This was true
with the Lakota also: in fact, it has been argued that a lack of unity is what may
have split the original Nation into the "Seven Council Fires". Hence, individuality
freedom, and harmony, there could never be a concept of absolute power. The
interests of the people were always to come first, and if a leader went against the
people's best interest, refusing to yield to pressure, the women had the right to
While only men could be elected to chieftanship or sachem, the women held
the key position of appointing and removing, in order to facilitate checks and
When a chief died, the women of his tribe and clan held a meeting at
which a candidate for the vacant place was decided upon. A woman
delegate carried the news to the chiefs of [the deceased] clans . . .
They had the power to veto the selection, in which case another
188
women's meeting was called and another candidate was selected.
Usually, however, the first choice of the women was confirmed . . .
Thereupon the candidacy was carried to the Confederate Council to
be ratified (Owen, pp. 571)
In Lakota societies, if council members acted against the best interest of the
tribe, and pressure brought to bear had no effect upon their decision, they could be
removed at any time. "If the people were not pleased [with a chief or headman]
they might either join another band and leave the new chief with little or no
following, or they might choose another chief, in which case the one first chosen
Those in either society that disagreed with a tribal decision or general law were
Among the Oglala Sioux Indians, a man in a camp was subject to the
commonly accepted laws and customs, and to the regulations of that
camp. If he desired to be free from these regulations he might set up
his tipi alone, far away from the camp, where he would be chief of
his own family, and govern all within his own tipi. If others
permanently placed their tipis near his, they formed a new camp, and
a new band, of which he was the chief. . . . if a large number joined
the new band, it became important in the affairs of the tribe, and its
chief a person of corresponding importance (Walker, 1982, pp.23-4).
189
There was no official punisher or sentence-body in the band or tribe.
The fate of the wrongdoer lay in the hands of the people of the band,
and chief, nor headman, in himself, had the power to impose
sentence of any sort. There was only the idea which repose in tribal
consciousness that wrong must not be allowed to flourish and right
must prevail. The way of the tribe in dealing with an offender was
simple and dignified. There was no violence such as whipping, . . .
no pompous show of authority. When it became necessary for the
band to protect itself it did so by merely ignoring and ostracizing the
violator (Standing Bear, pp. 136).
However, things changed over time. The akicita societies eventually became
the policing unit of the band or Nation. However, this occurred much later in the
Basically, peer pressure of the entire band, through ridicule or ostracism, was
best interest of tribe, rather than in his or her own best interest. If one's crime were
theoretically, was generally the solution. For any person who acted in their own
interest over that of the people's was a danger to the entire Nation. Such a person
was conceived as harmful to the social order, and a bad example for the children.
Hence, in Lakota society, the power to punish transgressors lay not in any kind of
among so many people? The League of the Iroquois contained over twenty
thousand members. The Lakota people numbered in the thousands. How could
190
well established within both indigenous Nation‟s democratic systems. For the
Haudenosaunee,
structure. The “nacas”, or civil councils, served as legislative bodies for the
Nation. The chief‟s council, or naca ominicia, was the major leadership body. The
patience, bravery, and integrity. Elders were usually especially honored in the
naca ominicia, for their wisdom and knowledge. However, any member of the
Nation could voice their concerns in council and have their issues seriously
The Naca Ominicia was, in truth, the real council of the tribe. It was
this body which met at the Red Council Lodge at the center of the
circle to hear the reports of scouts, to determine whether a tribal hunt
should be held, whether camp should be moved, whether war was to
be declared or peace was to be made. In this sense, the Naca
Ominicia held a true legislative responsibility. It is said that the
members acted only in unison, that decisions were reached only with
191
unanimous voice. Here the individual constituted a potent minority
with veto power. The group must convince the opposition, mediate
and reconcile differences, or acquiesce and forego the decision
(Hassrick, pp. 25).
The elder held a special place in Lakota society (Haudenosaunee also), as his/her
extensively documented than that of the Lakota, for obvious reasons. Their
contact with Europeans was earlier, before the influence of white settlers had
decimated traditional indigenous cultures. Thus, it was better documented than the
traditions of the Lakota Nations, who at the time were considered a hostile enemy
When an issue was brought before the council, the Mohawks and
Senecas discussed it first, then informed the Younger Brothers, the
Cayugas and Oneidas, of the conclusions they, as Older Brothers,
had reached. If the Older and Younger Brothers disagreed, the
Onondagas task was to search for paths of compromise and renewed
discussion. The Onondagas would then return the issue to the Older
and Younger Brothers for further consideration. When both
brotherhoods finally reached agreement, the Onondagas were
responsible for confirming the decision or subjecting it to further
discussion. Ideally, final decisions were unanimous. All council
members were to be of 'one heart, one mind, one law' (O'Brien, pp.
18-19).
192
Within the various tribes, unanimity was reached similarly. Usually consensus
on what would create a “common good” for the tribe as a whole could be reached,
but if not, any decision had to be set aside to be addressed at another time.
The system was one of democracy from the bottom up. When of issue of
substance came before the Haudenosaunee people, civil councils were formed.
Warriors might form a council, women another, Chiefs another, etc. Unanimity of
opinions were reached or civil councils splintered into unanimous groups. Each
group would appoint an orator to give the group's consensual decision. From
there, a Nation would bring their councils together, along with the Sachems, to
reach a unanimous position for the tribe. Once unanimity was reached within the
tribe, the Council of the League would gather to deliberate, and try to come to
The Sachems of each of the Five Nations then came together among
themselves, trying to reach a unanimous decision for each of the Five Nations.
Under no circumstances could the Council of the League make a decision or take
Just as the people were involved in the first level of the decision-making process,
i.e. by forming councils and sending unanimous decisions to higher councils, they
were fundamentally involved at the end of the decision-making process also. After
decisions were agreed upon by the 50 Sachems of the League, "an appeal was
made to the people, hoping they would agree" (Jennings, pp. 33).
decision had to be put aside. "When the council could not reach agreement despite
its best efforts, the Onondagas extinguished the confederacy council fire, thereby
giving each member nation the right to pursue an independent policy" (O'Brien,
pp. 19).
193
If the decision was rather clear-cut, and only a few Sachems were holding out
on unanimity, pressure was brought to bear on the hold-outs; if they could utterly
not be persuaded, the issue had to be put aside. "If any sachem was obdurate or
unreasonable, influences were brought to bear upon him which he could not well
resist; and it was seldom that inconvenience resulted from their inflexible
for the common good of the tribe or tribes, as opposed to ruling in the interest of
increasing power, prestige, or level of wealth. Morgan explains the system of
were organized. Morgan states, "The central government [of the League] was
organized and administered upon the same principles which regulated that of each
194
nation, in its separate capacity; the nations sustaining nearly the same relation to
the League, that the American states bear to the Union" (ibid, pp. 62).
similarly conducted. "The clans had their separate councils; but an ad hoc village
council of ranking clan chiefs, elders, and wise men made local policy. In a sense
the same thing happened at national and League levels" (Jennings, pp. 12). Engels
observes, "The gens has a council, the democratic assembly of all male and female
adult gentiles, all with equal votes. This council elected sachems, war chiefs and
also the other "keepers of the Faith" and deposed them. . . . In short, it [the
council] was the sovereign power in the gens" (Engels, pp. 151).
The League itself could only act on issues that involved two or more tribes. If
an issue involved only a single tribe within the League, that tribe was sovereign in
its decision-making capability. As with respect for the conscience and reasoning
capability of the individual, so too were the tribes accorded the respect to act
independently according to the wishes of its people. Rule from below was
tribal issues. Leaders were democratically and unanimously agreed upon by the
people of the Nation. All members of the community were welcome to voice their
opinions and discuss their concerns, while the council alone came to a unanimous
decision that would respect all person's views. Engels notes that the political
A tribal council for the common affairs of the tribe. It was composed
of all the sachems and war chiefs of the different gentes, who were
genuinely representative because they could be deposed at any time.
195
It held its deliberations in public surrounded by the other members
of the tribe, who had the rights to join freely in the discussion and to
make their views heard. The decision rested with the council. As a
rule, everyone was given a hearing who asked for it; the women
could also have their views expressed by a speaker of their own
choice (Engels, pp. 154-5).
making body. Input from the community, usually in the form of representatives
from various civil societies, had to be considered to facilitate decisions that would
be acceptable to all. As such, the people‟s will underlyed any decision reached by
the council. As with the League, if a decision was not consensual, no action could
be taken. Essentially, then, the people of each tribe were sovereign in their
The Lakota system was similar to that of the Haudenosaunee, but not nearly as
formalized. The Lakota held no numerical limits for their tribal council members.
chosen for Chief or Headman -- sometimes, if the person chosen was considered
too young for such responsibility, the women would act in his behalf until the time
of maturity came. "The Sioux had no head chief. Instead, there was a council of
headmen selected for regular, specified terms by the people, who retained the right
to throw them one or all from their high place at any time" (Sandoz, pp. 33).
Holding the position of investing and divesting leaders, the women acted as the
judiciary over the tribal council and their members -- were they overstepping their
bounds? Keeping the best interest of the tribe at heart and in their actions?
Working for the common good and not their own individual interest? If not, it was
the women who held the responsibility of insuring that justice prevailed. ". . . the
196
senior living woman is the matriarch and she presides over the household and
(Jennings, pp. 10). After all, they were the ultimate judges and jurors over council
While Sachemships and Chiefs were positions reserved only for male members
of a tribe, it was the women who appointed and removed leaders who dared to act
in their personal, rather than tribal, interest. "If the conduct of any sachem
the women of his clan impeached him and expelled him by official action,
whereupon the women then choose a new sachem" (Weatherford, pp. 138-139),
and further, "men owed their offices to female succession" (Jennings, pp. 9). For
in Haudenosaunee society, "leaders" were to follow -- follow the people's will, not
their own. Engels observes, "The authority of the sachem within the gens was
paternal and purely moral in character; he had no means of coercion." (Engles, pp.
149).
197
For the Lakota, as with the Haudenosaunee, if a council member was pushing a
decision that was considered by the women as not in the common interest,
pressure was brought to bear upon him, and three warnings were given: if he had
not "come around" to governing for the common good, the women were prompt
about removing him. Further, "Women, and girls too, . . . held chieftanship when
bands lost all their men of leadership stature, as in the great scourges and in the
later Sioux wars, when so many good men died. Sitting Bull returned from
Canada in 1881 with a couple of women among his chiefs" (Sandoz, pp. 72).
Forty years before women in the United States were awarded the priviledge to
vote, Lakota women were actually governing their bands and their Nations.
Mohawks and Senecas, the "Younger Brothers", had similar legislative functions
Brothers", had functions similar to the U.S. Senate. The Onondagas, being the
most centrally located geographically of the Five Nations (hence League council
meetings were held at their "council fire"), were given the task of seeking
compromise if the Younger and Older Brothers could not come to a consensual
giving final confirmation, much like the power of the executive in U.S.
government today.
Older Brothers, and the "Council Firekeepers" (the Onondaga) were a perfect
example of separation of power and checks and balances. Schaaf explains, "The
similar to the House of Representatives" (Schaaf, pp. 3). The "judiciary" of the
the conception of democratic government, had been firmly in place since at least
1450 C.E. for the Haudenosaunee, and before the time of Locke‟s birth for the
Lakota Nations.
indigenous systems, in order to ensure that Headmen and Sachems would act only
in the common interest, never in their own individual interest. Removal was swift
and final.
provided a clear check on power: no action could be taken unless all were of "one
heart, one mind". Essentially, each Nation had veto power over the others, and
each group of individuals had veto power over the whole. Chiefs and Sachems
had veto power over each other, for they also had to come to unanimous
agreement among themselves before they could speak on an issue. This was true
for both the Lakota and Haudenosaunee, for if all could not agree, no decision
could be made.
If the chiefs were unable to „roll their words into one bundle,‟ that is,
unable to reach unanimous agreement, the issue could only be set
aside and the council fire „covered with ashes‟. This requirement
meant that any chief had a virtual veto on any proposal before the
council (Sturdevant, pp. 422).
199
Separation of civil and military power was another important concept for the
were rulers in times of peace and the final decision-makers for the entire Nation or
Nations. "Chiefs", on the other hand, were elected leaders in time of war. One
person could never hold both offices at once, rather, civil and military leaders
The Lakota had a similar system in place. While “Nacas” were civil councils,
the “Akicita” societies were warrior and later, “policing” groups. As the Lakota
grew in numbers and territory, the need for warrior societies diminished, while the
band took turns keeping general order in the camp. Never would the same
"society" serve twice in a row. This insured that one society would not come to
power over people in the Nation. Most of the repressive governments in the world
today suffer from this kind of lack of separation of power, where civil and military
Although Chiefs (generally men) were leaders in time of war, the women
"maintained a sort of veto power to stop wars" (Schaaf, pp. 3). As a group they
200
could dissent from decisions to initiate war in council. Further, being the persons
refuse, if necessary, to provide adequate supplies for someone going on the “war-
path” against their wishes. The rights and wishes of the women were always
respected when decisions of war and peace lingered, for war affects the entire
community.
Haudenosaunee could not convene itself -- rather, each of the five tribes had the
sole right of calling the Council together, to discuss important matters of the
Confederacy or Nations. This check on power ensured that the council could not
always remain subordinate to the people, and its "power" subverted to the
Further, the League itself never had authority over matters concerning an
individual band or Nation -- those conflicts were handled internally, within the
Nation itself, on the same democratic basis used by the League. The League could
The League of the Haudenosaunee, the Seven Council Fires of the Lakota
Nations, and the independent Nations and families that they consisted of, all had
as a cornerstone of their political system both the concepts and the working reality
where each and every voice was heard and respected; where separation of powers
and checks and balances were inherent in the political order, to insure that those
201
that lead actually followed. For "leaders" were a part of the community, and could
not be separated nor immune from the consequences to it. What befell the people,
“All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons and
daughters of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in
it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself” (Gifford, pp. 47). Native
would come back to them and in fact define their lives and that of the people. The
fate of any individual in indigenous society was tied to that of the community.
This constituted a major motivational source for decision-makers and insured that
their actions were truly dedicated to the common good, rather than individual
interest.
The system was one dedicated to achieving harmony in society, hence the
uselessness of majority rule, and the necessity of consensus among leaders and the
people to make decisions in the interest of the common good. Leaders held no
disagreeing with the position of the tribe, was not forced to follow any decision.
equality, as so often happens in western capitalist republics. All had the "leisure
belongs to no one and all at the same time, all shared equally in her bounty. All
had the right to the fundamentals of life -- according to Thoreau, that warmth
necessary to sustain human life: food, clothing, and shelter. And possibly more
important, community in the deepest sense of that term. Where each is responsible
202
for all, and all are responsible for each. All human beings are deserving of this
egalitarian. Unfortunately, the advent of the European would forever change the
One hundred and thirteen years later, on December 29, 1890, at a place called
Wounded Knee Creek, in what is now the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the
Oglala Lakota, the last armed resistance of Native Americans to forced reservation
living was extinguished as U.S. soldiers ran, in some cases miles, to gun down
unarmed women, children and men. Over 260 Lakota persons were killed that
day. Buried with the bodies in the common grave overlooking the massacre site
was a just political system that had been in practice for hundreds of years. It has
yet to be recovered.
203
CHAPTER VIII
Political man has experienced a rocky journey for the past 6,000 years. From
Pharoahs and Emperors to Monarchs and Priests, the quest for rule from below:
for meaningful democracy, has been long and winding. Accomplishing the
creation of a political system based on rights and freedom rather than absolute
power is in no way an insignificant achievement. The majority of mankind never
did, and in most cases still doesn‟t, have the luxury we in the West take for
granted: the simple freedom to have some choice in charting the course of our
lives. The right to speak out against injustice and tyranny; the right to dissent; the
right to organize that dissent, and the actual possibility that the ensuing message
may be heard by those in a position to make changes. It is truly a brave new world
unfolding almost inperceptibly throughout our day-to-day lives. Like the sands
underlying the water of a raging mountain stream, the political world around us is
constantly metamorphizing, while we are the oblivious power of the water itself.
Mankind has struggled for these rights since the birth of civilization: they have
only been actualized in the last few hundred years. Since the time of John Locke,
a mere 300 years, the course of political society on earth has undergone a dramatic
Hobbes – was the backbone of these freedoms we experience daily. But Hobbes‟
consent was absolute once made – the sovereign had unconditional power once
204
John Locke improved vastly upon this idea. For if consent creates government,
so too can it dissolve it. The foundation for democracy thus laid, Locke‟s Two
Treatises on Government became the major catalyst for revolution against tyranny
John Locke‟s Two Treatises was the basic instrument for the “founding
fathers” in pledging the course of U.S. “democracy”. The United States‟ form of
At the time of the Revolution, Lockean ideals of who should compose the
“people” were well embedded in the “founding fathers” psyches. White, male,
property-owners (and in some colonies Protestants) were the only group deemed
fit to participate in voting. Those that own the country should make the decisions
for it (which in many ways is still true today, although more thoroughly
mandate of the general populace, as initially in the United States the only branch
All others were appointed (in the case of the judiciary), or “indirectly” elected
with the power to use their own, rather than popular discretion in decision-
205
Checks on the power of government were also implemented, according to a
itself the major check on power, as well as the basis for The Declaration of
Limit the power of the people, while limiting the power of government. This,
Yet the “founding fathers” were influenced by another group that demonstrated
building rather than pure majority mandate created a more harmonious political
and social environment. All decisions were made in open council, and if a
representative went to speak for a group of people, he or she was required to give
an accurate account of the groups concerns and position. All opinions and voices
were heard and discussed in council in order to facilitate the creation of a common
good. Separation of powers and checks and balances were firmly in place.
Constitution, it is interesting that the “founding fathers” chose to ignore the rights
mandate of ensuring that the majority would be so limited in their power that after
original consent was given, participation on the part of the masses would be
206
minimal: radification of elite decision-making during election years. The decision-
Why chose a Lockean paradigm over an indigenous one? Power. The concept
peoples of North America. Yet it was a staple of the European world: more
valuable than land or gold, more useful than shelter in a storm, and better
choice for rulers. Once attained, it is rarely distributed. How then, in a society
based on consent, can power be maintained by those that wield it? How can power
Quite simply. Initially, limit the voting public to those with similar economic
disempowered majority to feel as if they are participating when in fact their power
acceptable to the elite: which elite is chosen has relatively little consequence on
the over-all order of society. Either will protect the interests of the status-quo, and
neither will jeopardize the priviledges held by the economic elite that is the true
Owned and operated by the same elites, political debates can be narrowly
207
interpreted to fit into the overall framework of the established system. Generally
the media “frames” the debate by presenting us with only two choices: Republican
political or social problem, those that do not fit into this overall framework of
order are generally ignored by the mainstream media. Where are the genuine
options in U.S. society? Where are the candidates that are not controlled by elite
mandate? Certainly, they are not to be found within the mainstream media, nor are
their ideas. The genius of heralding a “free and open media”, while ownership of
the status-quo, is almost inspiring. It is to control ideas and opinions via the
illusion that we have genuine options, when in reality our only option is to radify
decisions made by the elites. Genuine choice and genuine diversity in opinion
rarely emerge in our “free press”. What better way to wield and maintain power
than to convince the citizenry that they are the ones wielding it? Machiavelli
would be proud.
While being stifled, the corporate-owned media convinces us that we are free.
opportunity, and that it is our own moral failings that lead to poverty, crime,
incapacitation and everything else we detest in the United States. Our slavery is
our freedom: this is the message so imbedded in the “American” mindset that we
208
But what kind of slavery could I possibly be talking about? Slavery to an elite
making money is superior to happiness, and yet happiness at the same time is
defined as money. Slavery to spending the majority of our lives working for
material possessions while the real profits go to those maintaining power. Slavery
to a world where extreme individualism means that we care for ourselves, “look
out for #1”, with little responsibility or compassion for our fellow man.
So how does one maintain power while convincing the citizenry that they
Most “Americans” will argue that we have the best political system in the
world today. But even if most people believe that, why should we stop there? Why
limit ourselves to “the best available” when there are better options in existence?
It is like saying to an Olympic sprinter, “This is your best time yet – don‟t try to
improve it”. The answer? If we do not continue to strive, we stagnate and wither.
What does not grow begins to die. Such is the true “natural law”.
Our political system has stagnated. Generally, 50% of the eligible population
votes in any Presidential election. Many vote for the “lesser of two evils” rather
than for a candidate that they actually agree with ideologically. Anyone voting a
minor party ticket is told that they are throwing their vote away or deliberately
harming one of the two major political parties. Citizens of the United States vote
more often against a particular candidate than for anyone. And after the
Presidential election of 2000, more people than ever have lost faith in the system.
209
Clearly, the U.S. political system has stagnated to a point where most citizens
feel that their vote does not count (or will not be counted), their voice will not be
heard, and politics is essentially a game of Monopoly where money is the only
genuine player. Park Place is taken, and so are the rest of the properties. Hotels
have been built. Your only salvation is in the roll of the dice. Where will you
Why could we not learn a lesson from the only truly democratic societies that
have ever been in existence? Why can we not expand our concept of democracy to
its original definition of rule by the people? The Haudenosaunee did it, as did the
concept of private ownership; and harmony, of all things, as the end of political
society. Incredibly inefficient to allow all voices to be heard. Not at all expedient
to methodically deliberate all choices for maintaining the common good. And
imagine the shock of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine
when they witnessed a matrilineal society where women had not only the right to
participate in political debate, but as well held the position of appointing and
John Locke was a great man, and a great scholar. We owe much of our
freedom to his work, to his ideas, and his own struggle for freedom. But we must
enough” when quality is within our grasp. And what are discussing is the most
210
important kind of quality to all mankind – quality of life. The world changes
I have been arguing that the socio-political model of the Haudenosaunee and
Lakota is more democratic, in any meaningful sense of that term, and more
For what is democracy without political equality in the full sense of that term?
Even Locke appears to tacitly agree that holding similar economic means is
owners could be citizens, then only those with similar economic means should be
to exclude the poor in the political debate, theorists such as Rousseau and social
systems such as the Lakota and Haudenosaunee‟s have seen the solution to be the
opposite: that all should have the economic means necessary to enable
participation in decision-making.
The indigenous Nations of North America arranged a social system where all
could participate, where decisions were made by consensus, and where those in
“charge” held the greatest responsibility in seeing that all the people were fed and
sheltered. Not the power to see that the people had the basic necessities of life: but
the responsibility. A system where material goods never came before love of
nature and respect for all living creatures – and where people were not isolated
individuals, but conceptual brothers and sisters. Would you help your brother if he
211
were starving? Give him a coat if he were freezing? Give him shelter on a rainy
The Lakota‟s concept of social man encompasses these acts of compassion. For
all men are brothers, as are all women. All were related in true community where
the troubles of one became the troubles of all. Even those eventually banished
from society were given the basic necessities to survive: but one man alone can
rarely survive on the plains or in the woods of “America”. Hence the emphasis on
All should have the basic resources necessary to enable them to participate in a
extensive way in the political debate. In his own way, even Locke seems to
human dignity and the basic respect that every human being deserves.
democracy. There needs to be no clean wiping of the slate and even distribution of
assets and shareholders‟ equity10, the elderly, poor, and the majority of the
middle-class struggle to pay for their prescription medication. At the same time,
the country‟s more conservative party at its National Convention proposed a plan
of how to help the stuggling populace. According to an article in the Denver Post,
“The GOP prescription drug plan „relies on a trickle-down scheme that privides a
subsidy for insurers but not a single dollar for middle-class seniors and people
212
with disabilities‟”11. Trickle-down economics only widened the gap between the
rich and poor in the 1980‟s – why would anyone assume that giving subsidies to
the most profitable industry in the country would make things cheaper at the cash
exists for all of the people. In the U.S., this opportunity is actually quite limited.
How can the United States of America possibly argue that we all have equality of
opportunity when our educational priorities and system funding are relatively
draconian? Property taxes determine how much money a particular school district
has available. Therefore, the more affluent the neighborhood, the more affluent
schools whose student‟s average scores on standardized tests are high. The higher
the average test score, the more funding the school receives. At 25%, the school
gets no rewards, and schools under 25% are to be re-chartered. Sound good? Not
for the poor. It‟s the capitalist system applied to the education of our children. In
213
In other words, the schools with the wealthiest students and thereby the most
funding will receive more funding, while the poorest districts will receive no extra
monies. George W. Bush wants to expand basically this same system throughout
the country.
opportunities we cannot claim that the playing field is even. We cannot expect a
And finally, in the great State of Colorado, the Governor in August signed a
insurance premiums for poor children. Initially, the plan called for sending the
families to collection agencies while at the same time “locking out” their children
from health care coverage for 3 months. A part of the State‟s declared mission,
other than to insure uninsured children, was to teach parents the value of
children‟s health insurance. “To teach parents to value children‟s health insurance,
premiums were set high, fifth highest in the country”13. Now those families whom
the State was so eager to help are a reprieve away from being turned over to
collection agents, who will jeopardize their credit, force them to pay interest on
back-payments, and if this wasn‟t enough, will lose their children‟s health care
coverage for 3 months. Where would the children then go if ill? To a hospital
214
emergency room paid for by – you guessed it – the state (i.e., taxpayers). This
policy makes no sense in terms of respect for humanity nor does it have any
These are just three recent examples of the course that has been steered for our
country. What average “American” would agree to these policies? Give more
money to the richer school districts and none to the poor? Use punitive methods
on the poor to make them “value children‟s health insurance” by setting the
premiums too high for many to pay, and then send them to collection and lock-out
their children from health care coverage for 3 months? Help the average person
company in hopes that from the goodness of their hearts and not their profit-
Who would vote for implementation of such policies? Certainly not the public
The proper term for all of this, I believe, is “Robin Hood in reverse”, which has
generally been the policy in the U.S. over the past 2 decades. Take from the poor
and give to the rich. Trickle-down economics was proof enough of this: give tax-
breaks and subsidies to the rich, in hopes that the wealth will “trickle-down” to
215
the middle and poorer classes. In actuality, most of those corporations then used
eliminating the blue-collar worker in the U.S. As pay in the 3rd World is pennies
on the dollar, corporations can then realize even higher profits, and the rich get
In the U.S.‟s Lockean-type system, where elites are free to make decisions for
the people under a mask of “democracy”, the people must unveil truth for
removed from decision-making that the above kinds of policies are being
that was fair to all, what rules would we institute? John Rawls argues that if we
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic
liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Secondly, social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably
expected to be to everyone‟s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and
offices open to all (Rawls, pp. 60)
In other words, the more advantaged you are: say in intelligence, athletic
ability, or material goods, the more responsibility to the community you have.
216
Economic inequalities have to work for the benefit of all: if someone is
economically advantaged, they should use it to help the less fortunate improve
their situation.
Just like the system of the Lakota and Haudenosaunee. Wealth meant
responsibility, not power. And of course the basis of this was that the wealthiest
person was he or she who gave the most, not the one who had the most. Economic
seed of humankind‟s worst enemy: greed. For once greed is instilled in the
Providing the basic necessities of life for all people was a cornerstone of
indigenous American societies. Never was a person left without shelter or food, at
least when food was available. For it is not mankind‟s wealth that they shared, it
not re-consider and re-define our traditional notions of democracy and the
political equality that is its foundation? Why not strive for the golden ring?
many cases in direct conflict with the truth of indigenous societies. For unlike his
claims in the Two Treatises, the deer taken in the woods was not the property of
217
the indian who killed it: it was communal property, inherently meant to feed
everyone. To argue that a King of a large, fruitful territory is fed, clad and
argue that the Indians of America never cultivated the land, thereby relinquishing
considering that the pilgrims of “America” had only survived their first winters
due to indigenous Americans teaching them to cultivate the soil. Locke must have
known. This was happening during his lifetime: the homeland of the Puritans was
Great Britian.
Finally, to argue that the Indians of America had no civil government was,
quite simply, a blatant misinterpretation of the facts, and Locke must have known
it. He had plenty of evidence by the time he was writing The Two Treatises to the
contrary: from indigenous peoples in Peru (the Incas, one of the most highly
on the behaviors, customs and social systems of the indigenous peoples living
there; to reports of the Six Iroquois Nations and the “Five Civilized Tribes”; it
would have been impossible for Locke to have never encountered the truth: rather,
218
Locke, very simply, got it wrong for his own purposes. It‟s difficult creating a
social contract theory when the “men in a state of nature” that you are using as
your primary example act in a completely opposite way than they are theoretically
suppose to.
rather than one man one vote. Everyone‟s voice counts equally, reguardless of
Everyone‟s life, freedom, and individuality count equally in this society. The
community needs a ditch dug, maybe more than it needs the corporate executive.
As the worker fills an important need for the community, the community responds
by filling the needs of the worker. Each has a genuine responsibility to the other.
As we are only borrowing this earth from our grandchildren, all share in the
bounty of the earth. It is not our food or shelter to give: it is the Creators. It
belongs to us all: not just those that claimed land as “theirs” (an impossible
concept!) first; or gained their wealth from the rape of the land, the rape of the
resources, or the rape of the people. Her bounty belongs to the entire community
of life.
Local decisions are made by consensus by all members of the community, only
in the interest of creating a common good. All options are analyzed: not soley
those made by a powerful few. Deliberation goes on in the community for days,
maybe weeks, until some kind of consensus can be realized. Dissenters are
219
Rule is from below – the people are sovereign. Those higher up in the
responsible for the other. For power better resides in the thunderstorm or the
forest fire than in the hands of men. Power is not the domain of humankind:
Harmony with human beings, the earth, and all living things is the objective of
instituting order so that while some safely thrive in material largess, others
The head of the political arena has a duty to see that all the citizery is fed and
sheltered. In return, all that can will work for the common good: for work is
meaningful when it is to improve the quality of life of yourself and those around
you.
respected. So is the idea of community over selfishness, giving over greed, wealth
as that which is shared. All participate: all voices are heard. Opinion is genuine,
based on facts and reason, and decisions are not rationalizations, rather, they are
checked through the heart to engender justice and fairness for all. Respect, for the
self, others, and all in creation, are at the heart of the system. Stewardship, not
ownership, is the law of the land. Every man, woman or child is granted their
inherent right as a human being to the basic necessities of life. Each contributes
220
what they are able, and takes just what is necessary. Each is conceptually the
Imagine a world where we take only what we need from the land, and never
without giving something back. A place where the earth takes care of us, as we
take care of the earth. A place where compassion for living things, including
humans, is placed above the individual ego. A place you can leave freely, with the
democratic world than the one we live in. It is clearly more eqalitarian. Its
emphasis on harmony and community are more meaningful for the individual than
an insatiable thirst for wealth, fame, or success. For what else can wealth possibly
The world of the Lakota and Haudenosaunee offers mankind a better vision: of
what a truly democratic and eqalitarian society looks like. How it works. What its
It is not a dream that died on a battlefield, nor with the signing of treaties. It is
a vision of what the future could hold for mankind, and a glimpse down the road
of real progress for humanity: equality and fairness. Democracy cannot exist
without either. It too must evolve along the lines of natural selection.
Indigenous democracies were not wiped out because they were not the “fittest”.
They were wiped out because they were a threat to the European concept of
221
absolute power and the insatiable quest of the white man for ownership of
“private property”.
But if we want to follow the true course of evolution, then only the “fittest”
social system may survive. While Lockean ideals were superior for their time, so
too must they pass, so that the evolution of democracy may continue.
222
ENDNOTES
1
Bowring, John, ed., pp. 143.
2
Locke, John, 1960, II, #49, pp. 343.
3
Standing Bear, Luther, pp. 197.
4
Crazy Horse, Lakota Legend.
5
Gifford & Cook, pp. 48.
6
Aristotle, pp. 112.
7
Locke, John, 1960, II, #229, pp. 466.
8
Wallace, Paul, pp. 34.
9
Tolkien, J.R.R., pp. 325.
10
Fortune 500, 4/17/00, pp. 15.
11
The Denver Post, 8/1/00, pp. 2A.
12
Ibid, 2/27/00, pp. 1B.
13
Ibid, 8/1/00, pp. 1A.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
223
Aaron, Richard I. John Locke. Oxford University Press, London:1971.
Anderson, Terry L. Property Rights and Indian Economies. Rowman & Littlefield
Publisher, Inc., Landam, MD: 1992.
Aristotle. The Politics. Earnest Baker, ed. Clarenden Press, Oxford: 1946.
Arneil, Barbara. John Locke and America: The Defense of English Colonialism.
Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1996.
Ashcraft, Richard. Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Allen & Unwin Press,
London: 1987.
Beer, Max. The History of British Socialism. G. Allen & Unwin, London: 1940.
Bourne, H.R. Fox. The Life of John Locke. 2 Vols. London: 1876.
Bowring, John, ed. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. X. Edinburgh: 1843.
Brown, Joseph Epes. The Spiritual Legacy of the American Indian. Crossroad
Publishing, New York: 1982.
Burtt, Edwin A. The English Philosophers From Bacon to Mill. Random House,
N.Y.: 1967.
224
Catlin, George. Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of
NorthAmerican Indians. Dover Publications, N.Y.: 1973, Two Volumes.
(Original Publ. date, 1844).
Chomsky, Noam. On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures. South End
Press, Boston, 1987.
----- John Locke: A Biography. The MacMillan Company, New York: 1957.
Curtis, Natalie. The Indians Book: Authentic Native American Legends, Lore &
Music. Outlet Book Co., Inc., Avenel, N.J.: 1987. (Original Publ. date,
1907).
Daly, Herman E. & John B. Cobb, Jr. For the Common Good: Redirecting the
Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable
Future. Beacon Press, Boston: 1989.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties An Indian Declaration of
Independence. Delacorte Press, N.Y.: 1974.
-----Custer Died for Your Sins; An Indian Manifesto. MacMillan Press, N.Y.:
1969.
DeMallie, Raymond J., ed. The Sixth Grandfather: Black Elk's Teachings Given
to John G. Neihardt. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln: 1984.
Densmore, Francis. Teton Sioux Music & Culture. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln: 1992. (Original Publ. date, 1918).
225
-----The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge: 1969.
-----"The Politics of John Locke in England and American in the 18th Century", in
John Yolton (ed.), John Locke: Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge:1969.
Engels, Fredrick. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
International Publishers, N.Y.: 1978.
Gifford, Eli & R. M. Cook, eds. How Can One Sell the Air? Book Publishing
Co., Summertown, Tenn.: 1992 (original speeches, late 1800s).
Gough, J.W. John Locke's Political Philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1973.
Harrison, John, and Laslett, Peter (eds.). The Library of John Locke. Oxford
University Press, Oxford: 1965.
Jackson, Helen. A Century of Dishonor. Scholarly Press, St. Clair Shores, Mi.:
1974. (Original date of publication: 1880).
Jennings, Francis, et.al. The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy. Syracuse
University Press, Syracuse: 1985.
Johansen, Bruce. Forgotten Founders: How the American Indian Helped Shape
Democracy. Harvard Common Press, Boston: 1982.
King James Version. The Holy Bible. National Bible Press, Philadelphia.
227
Kendall, Willmoore. John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill.: 1965.
Lifton, John Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of
Genocide. Basic Books, Inc., New York: 1986.
Lame Deer, John Fire. Lame Deer Seeker of Visions. Washington Square Press,
N. Y.: 1972.
Lamprecht, Sterling P. Moral and Political Philosophy of John Locke. Russell &
Russell, Inc., N.Y.: 1962.
----- Correspondence. E.S. de Beer, ed. 8 Vols. Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1976-
1983.
----- Essays on the Law of Nature, W. von Leyden, ed. Oxford University Press,
Oxford: 1954.
----- "Notes For an Essay on Trade". 1674, Bodleian Library, MS c. 30 fo. 18.
----- "Notes on Trade in Sweden, Denmark, and New England". 1696. Bodleian
Library, MS c.30, fo.38.
----- Two Treatises of Civil Government. ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge University
Press, New York: 1960.
Lovelock, J.E. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press,
Oxford: 1979.
228
Lutz, Donald S. "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th
Century American Political Thought". American Political Science
Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (1984), 189-97.
Lyons, Mohawk, Deloria, et. al. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy,
Indian Nations, and the U.S. Constitution. Clear Light Publishers, Santa
Fe: 1992.
Marin, Calvin Luther. In the Spirit of the Earth: Rethinking History and Time.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 1992.
McLuhan, T.C. ed. Touch the Earth. Simon & Schuster, New York: 1971.
---- League of the Iroquois. Citadel Press, Inc., Secaucus, N.J.: 1975
(Original Publication date, 1851).
Murphy, Nancey & George F.R. Ellis. On the Moral Nature of the Universe:
Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics. Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 1996.
Nerburn, Kent & Louise Mengelkoch, eds. Native American Wisdom. New World
Library, San Rafael, CA: 1991.
Parsons, Elsie Clews, ed. American Indian Life. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, 1991 (org. publication date: 1922).
Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. Documents of United States Indian Policy. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln: 1990.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract and the Discourse on the Origin of
Inequality. Lester G. Crocker, ed. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York:
1957.
Sandoz, Mari. These Were the Sioux. Dell, New York: 1961.
Schaaf, Gregory. "The Birth of Frontier Democracy from an Eagle's Eye View:
The Great Law of Peace to The Constitution of the United States of
America". Akwesasne Notes. Summer, 1987:3-4.
Stannard, David E. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New
World. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1992.
Standing Bear, Luther. Land of the Spotted Eagle. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln: 1933.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring. Ballantine Books, New York: 1965.
Wagner, Sally Roesch. The Untold Story of the Iroquois Influence on Early
Feminists. Sky Carrier Press, Aberdeen, S.D.:1996.
Walker, James R. Lakota Belief and Ritual. (ed. R.J. DeMallie). University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln: 1991. (Original documents, 1896-1914).
231
----- Lakota Society. (ed. Raymond J. DeMallie). University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln: 1982. (Original documents, 1896-1914).
Wallace, Paul A.W. The White Roots of Peace. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia: 1946.
Watson, James D. The Double Helix. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York:
1968.
Weatherford, Jack. Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed
theWorld. Fawcett Columbine, New York: 1988.
Williams, Robert A., Jr. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The
Discourse of Conquest. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1990.
Wise, Jennings C. & Vine Deloria, Jr. The Red Man in the New World Drama: A
Politico Legal Study with a Pageantry of American Indian History.
MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., N.Y.:1971.
Wood, Neal. The Politics of Locke's Philosophy: A Social Study of "An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding". University of California Press,
Berkeley:1983.
Wright, Asher. "Seneca Indians", pp. 310-311; Fenton, "Toward the Gradual
Civilization of the Indian Natives: the Missionary and Linguistic Work of
Asher Wright (1803-1875) Among the Senecas of Western New York".
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 100, No. 6
(1956):567-581. Philadelphia.
232
ENDNOTES
1
Bowring, John, ed., pp. 143.
2
Locke, John, 1960, II, #49, pp. 343.
3
Standing Bear, Luther, pp. 197.
4
Crazy Horse, Lakota Legend.
5
Gifford & Cook, pp. 48.
6
Aristotle, pp. 112.
7
Locke, John, 1960, II, #229, pp. 466.
8
Wallace, Paul, pp. 34.
9
Tolkien, J.R.R., pp. 325.
10
Fortune 500, 4/17/00, pp. 15.
11
The Denver Post, 8/1/00, pp. 2A.
12
Ibid, 2/27/00, pp. 1B.
13
Ibid, 8/1/00, pp. 1A.
233