American Indian Egalitarianism (Was: Re: Hodenausaunee

thomas w kavanagh (tkavanag@INDIANA.EDU)
Sat, 27 Jan 1996 21:08:52 -0500

Dr. Rohrlich

Ok, lets generalize.
You have stated that you have "taught and written about the egalitarianism
of American Indians." I too have taught (UNM, GW,Georgetown: North
American Indians, Political Anthropology) and written about American
Indians, most recently in 'Comanche Political History, 1706-1875,' (U
Nebraska Press, 1996). In those courses, and in the book, I have attempted
to maintain a concern for the specifics of the techical anthropological
language as distinct from the everyday uses of some of those same words:
thus there is a problem of tribe, a problem of structure and organization,
and a problem of egalitarianism. Of those terms, the first and last have
very significant contemporary political implications, and therefore
require that we, as anthropologists speaking in anthropological contexts
-- I assume that anthro-l is an anthropological context -- be as
consistant and as strict as we can.

Moreover, I am also concerned with the ways in which American Indian
peoples have been characterized, both positively and negatively, by
Euroamericans (and other Indians) for their own political purposes, and
the ways in which those political characterizations differ from the
"objective" (note the quotation marks, signifying a recognition of the
subjectivity of the situation) ways in which anthropology views those same
peoples. There is thus the possibility of an equal but opposite distance
from that "objectivity" for the Spanish Texan writing in 1820, calling
Comanches perverse savages, and an early twentieth century romantic writer
speaking of "the" (singular) American Indian being at one with nature.

Thus, in my book, I have specified that the Comanches were a "rank"
society, that there were the aggregation of prestige and authority was
limited based on the possession of "power" (both male and female), of war
records (primarily male--no documented evidence of female warriors), and
of the distribution of wealth (both male and female). To be specific,
those limits were the dynamic internal competition for social standing
among the active political participants.

Based on my reading of the Hodenausaunee literature, there were even more
structural limitations on the attainment of positions of prestige and
authority -- i.e. having a clan and "tribe" -based socio-political system
than there were for the Comanches. If the Comanches were "ranked", and the
Hodenausaunee even moreoso, I wanted to know how you considered them
"egalitarian" in the strict anthropological sense.

That was the reason for my question. It was not intended as "feminist-
baiting", period. It was intended to elicit how you considered the
Hodenausaunee as "egalitarian" rather than something else. At the outset, I
offered a brief synopsis of why I did not consider them "egalitarian."
Can you do the same for your position vis-a-vis the Hodenausaunee, or any
other American Indian group?

tk
-*-*-*-*

On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:

> Your final question is the one t o which I don't have the answer, and
> which I asked you to answer. You have not yet done this, but don't
> bother. I made the mistake of trying to have a civilized dialogue with
> you, even though I sensed immediately your feminist-baiting. You can look
> up the references under the names you are interested in, but I will not
> respond to further communications from you. Ruby Rohrlich
>
> On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, thomas w kavanagh wrote:
>
> > If you would read down through the posts and reposts, appended to all this
> > correspondence, you will see that my original question to you was to
> > explain your view that the Hodenausaunee were "egalitarian,"
> > which you said you had taught and written about. I included in that
> > question the observation, obtained from the basic literature
> > (Morgan, Parker, Fenton, Tooker) that by Fried's technical definition,
> > the Hodenausaunee, at least in the formal political aspects of the
> > League, were not egalitarian. In your answer you said you could "not
> > answer my question," and then asked me to answer my own question. To me,
> > that is turning it around. (BTW, in phrasing my original question the way
> > I did, I answered it: the Hodenausaunee were/are not "egalitarian." I
> > asked you to justify your position.)
> >
> > I then asked you for references to your (or Dr. Leacock's)
writings on the
> > subject of Hodenausaunee egalitarianism, which you claim to have written
> > and taught about. Only insofar as I asked you to specify the basis for
> > your anthropological analysis of the Hodenausaunee as egalitarian have I
> > "veered to another subject" away from an historical analysis of "the first
> > feminists and the Iroquois women."
> > *-*-*-*-*-*-
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> >
> > > You posed a question, to which I said I didn't know the answer, and asked
> > > you to give the answer. How is that "turning it around"? Now, you have
> > > veered to another sub ject, and want references. This is a far cry from
> > > my original posting ab out Elaine Rapping's article in ON THE ISSUES
> > > about the close relationships between the first feminists and the
> > > Iroquois women. Ruby Rohrlich
> > >
> > > On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, thomas w kavanagh wrote:
> > >
> > > > Come on now, don't turn it around. All I asked was, since you cite
> > > > yourself as having written on the subject, how you consider the
> > > > Hodenausaunee "egalitarian." All I know on the subject is what I read
> > > > [BTW, I am interested in reading you article, or Dr. Leacock on the
> > > > subject, can you give me a reference?] and by applying Fried's definition,
> > > > they didn't seem to qualify. If you--and Morgan?-- are using another,
> > > > perhaps looser definition of the term, what is it? Has there been any more
> > > > recent examination of the subject?
> > > >
> > > > tk
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My knowledge of the Hodenausaunee seems not to be as extensive as yours
> > > > > seems to be, for I cannot answer your question, but I would be interested
> > > > > in your answer. However, the
> > > > > egalitarianism of the League of the Iroquois has been asserted by many
> > > > > anthropologists, beginning with Lewis Henry Morgan. Ruby Rohrlich
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, thomas w kavanagh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although some anthropologists - Judith Brown, Eleanor
> > > > > > > Leacock and I -- have taught and written about the egalitarianism of
> > > > > > > American Indians, particularly the Iroquois Confederacy
> > > > > > <unsnip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in how you consider the Hodenausaunee "egalitarian." As
> > > > > > defined by Fried, an egalitarian society is one which "there are as many
> > > > > > positions of prestige in any given age-sex grade as there
are persons
> > > > > > capable of filling them" (1967:33). This would seem not to apply to the
> > > > > > Hodenausaunee, or at least to the formal political aspects of the
> > > > > > "League," in which only certain specific clans and lineages in those clans
> > > > > > had/have control of the council chief positions. Moreover, the Tuscarora
> > > > > > have no representation in the formal councils. In what ways does the Clan
> > > > > > Mother of a non-represented clan have the kind of authority that a
> > > > > > represented Clan Mother has?
> > > > > > tk
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>