|
|
In Indian social organization, a problem at once suggests itself.
In these communities, comparatively populous, how could spirits so
fierce, and in many respects so ungoverned, live together in peace,
without law and without enforced authority? Yet there were towns
where savages lived together in thousands with a harmony which
civilization might envy. This was in good measure due to
peculiarities of Indian character and habits. This intractable race
were, in certain external respects, the most pliant and complaisant
of mankind. The early missionaries were charmed by the docile
acquiescence with which their dogmas were received; but they soon
discovered that their facile auditors neither believed nor
understood that to which they had so promptly assented. They
assented from a kind of courtesy, which, while it vexed the priests,
tended greatly to keep the Indians in mutual accord. That well-known
self-control, which, originating in a form of pride, covered the
savage nature of the man with a veil, opaque, though thin,
contributed not a little to the same end. Though vain, arrogant,
boastful, and vindictive, the Indian bore abuse and sarcasm with an
astonishing patience. Though greedy and grasping, he was lavish
without stint, and would give away his all to soothe the manes of a
departed relative, gain influence and applause, or ingratiate
himself with his neighbors. In his dread of public opinion, he
rivaled some of his civilized successors.
All Indians, and especially these populous and stationary tribes,
had their code of courtesy, whose requirements were rigid and exact;
nor might any infringe it without the ban of public censure. Indian
nature, inflexible and unmalleable, was peculiarly under the control
of custom. Established usage took the place of law, was, in fact, a
sort of common law, with no tribunal to expound or enforce it. In
these wild democracies, democracies in spirit, though not in form, a
respect for native superiority, and a willingness to yield to it,
were always conspicuous. All were prompt to aid each other in
distress, and a neighborly spirit was often exhibited among them.
When a young woman was permanently married, the other women of the
village supplied her with firewood for the year, each contributing
an armful. When one or more families were without shelter, the men
of the village joined in building them a house. In return, the
recipients of the favor gave a feast, if they could; if not, their
thanks were sufficient. [The following testimony concerning Indian
charity and hospitality is from Ragueneau: "As often as we have seen
tribes broken up, towns destroyed, and their people driven to
flight, we have seen them, to the number of seven or eight hundred
persons, received with open arms by charitable hosts, who gladly
gave them aid, and even distributed among them a part of the lands
already planted, that they might have the means of living."
Relation, 1650, 28.] Among the Iroquois and Huron and doubtless
among the kindred tribes there were marked distinctions of noble and
base, prosperous and poor; yet, while there was food in the village,
the meanest and the poorest need not suffer want. He had but to
enter the nearest house, and seat himself by the fire, when, without
a word on either side, food was placed before him by the women.
| [The Jesuit Brébeuf, than whom no one knew the Huron
better, is very emphatic in praise of their harmony and
social spirit. Speaking of one of the four nations of
which the Huron were composed, he says: "Ils ont vne
douceur et vne affabilité quasi incroyable pour des
Sauuages; ils ne se picquent pas aisément. . . . Ils se
maintiennent dans cette si parfaite intelligence par les
frequentes visites, les secours qu'ils se donnent
mutuellement dans leurs maladies, par les festins et les
alliances. . . . Ils sont moins en leurs Cabanes que
chez leurs amis. . . S'ils ont vn bon morceau, ils en
font festin à leurs amis, et ne le mangent quasi iamais
en leur particulier," etc. Relation des Huron, 1636,
118.] |
Contrary to the received opinion, these Indians, like others of
their race, when living in communities, were of a very social
disposition. Besides their incessant dances and feasts, great and
small, they were continually visiting, spending most of their time
in their neighbors' houses, chatting, joking, bantering one another
with witticisms, sharp, broad, and in no sense delicate, yet always
taken in good part. Every village had its adepts in these wordy
tournaments, while the shrill laugh of young squaws, untaught to
blush, echoed each hardy jest or rough sarcasm.
In the organization of the savage communities of the continent, one
feature, more or less conspicuous, continually appears. Each nation
or tribe to adopt the names by which these communities are usually
known is subdivided into several clans. These clans are not locally
separate, but are mingled throughout the nation. All the members of
each clan are, or are assumed to be, intimately joined in
consanguinity. Hence it is held an abomination for two persons of
the same clan to intermarry; and hence, again, it follows that every
family must contain members of at least two clans. Each clan has its
name, as the clan of the Hawk, of the Wolf, or of the Tortoise; and
each has for its emblem the figure of the beast, bird, reptile,
plant, or other object, from which its name is derived. This emblem,
called totem by the Algonquins, is often tattooed on the clansman's
body, or rudely painted over the entrance of his lodge. The child
belongs, in most cases, to the clan, not of the father, but of the
mother. In other words, descent, not of the totem alone, but of all
rank, titles, and possessions, is through the female. The son of a
chief can never be a chief by hereditary title, though he may become
so by force of personal influence or achievement. Neither can he
inherit from his father so much as a tobacco-pipe. All possessions
alike pass of right to the brothers of the chief, or to the sons of
his sisters, since these are all sprung from a common mother. This
rule of descent was noticed by Champlain among the Huron in 1615.
That excellent observer refers it to an origin which is doubtless
its true one. The child may not be the son of his reputed father,
but must be the son of his mother, a consideration of more than
ordinary force in an Indian community.
["Les enfans ne succedent iamais aux biens et dignitez de leurs
peres, doubtant comme i'ay dit de leur geniteur, mais bien font-ils
leurs successeurs et heritiers, les enfans de leurs sœurs, et
desquels ils sont asseurez d'estre yssus et sortis." Champlain
(1627), 91.
Captain John Smith had observed the same, several years before,
among the tribes of Virginia: "For the Crowne, their heyres inherite
not, but the first heyres of the Sisters." True Relation, 43 (ed.
Deane).]
This system of clanship, with the rule of descent usually belonging
to it, was of very wide prevalence. Indeed, it is more than probable
that close observation would have detected it in every tribe east of
the Mississippi; while there is positive evidence of its existence
in by far the greater number. It is found also among the Dahcotah
and other tribes west of the Mississippi; and there is reason to
believe it universally prevalent as far as the Rocky Mountains, and
even beyond them. The fact that with most of these hordes there is
little property worth transmission, and that the most influential
becomes chief, with little regard to inheritance, has blinded casual
observers to the existence of this curious system.
It was found in full development among the Creeks, Choctaws,
Cherokees, and other Southern tribes, including that remarkable
people, the Natchez, who, judged by their religious and political
institutions, seem a detached offshoot of the Toltec family. It is
no less conspicuous among the roving Algonquins of the extreme
North, where the number of totems is almost countless. Everywhere it
formed the foundation of the polity of all the tribes, where a
polity could be said to exist.
The Franciscans and Jesuits, close students of the languages and
superstitions of the Indians, were by no means so zealous to analyze
their organization and government. In the middle of the seventeenth
century the Huron as a nation had ceased to exist, and their
political portraiture, as handed down to us, is careless and
unfinished. Yet some decisive features are plainly shown. The Huron
nation was a confederacy of four distinct contiguous nations,
afterwards increased to five by the addition of the Tionnontates; it
was divided into clans; it was governed by chiefs, whose office was
hereditary through the female; the power of these chiefs, though
great, was wholly of a persuasive or advisory character; there were
two principal chiefs, one for peace, the other for war; there were
chiefs assigned to special national functions, as the charge of the
great Feast of the Dead, the direction of trading voyages to other
nations, etc.; there were numerous other chiefs, equal in rank, but
very unequal in influence, since the measure of their influence
depended on the measure of their personal ability; each nation of
the confederacy had a separate organization, but at certain periods
grand councils of the united nations were held, at which were
present, not chiefs only, but also a great concourse of the people;
and at these and other councils the chiefs and principal men voted
on proposed measures by means of small sticks or reeds, the opinion
of the plurality ruling.
[These facts are gathered here and there from
Champlain, Sagard, Bressani, and the Jesuit Relations
prior to 1650. Of the Jesuits, Brébeuf is the most full
and satisfactory. Lafitau and Charlevoix knew the Huron
institutions only through others.
The names of the four confederate Huron nations were the
Ataronchronons, Attignenonghac, Attignaouentans, and
Ahrendarrhonons. There was also a subordinate "nation"
called Tohotaenrat, which had but one town. (See the map
of the Huron Country.) They all bore the name of some
animal or other object: thus the Attignaouentans were
the Nation of the Bear. As the clans are usually named
after animals, this makes confusion, and may easily lead
to error. The Bear Nation was the principal member of
the league.] |
This site includes some historical
materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language
of a particular period or place. These items are presented as part of the
historical record and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in
any way endorse the stereotypes implied.
The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century, 1867
Jesuits
in North America
 |
