Siouan Sociology by James Owen Dorsey

A few observations from an 1897 Bureau of Ethnology Report.

“Regarding chieftainship among the Dakota, Philander Prescott  says: “The chieftainship is of modern date, there being no chiefs before the whites came. The chiefs have little power. The chief's band is almost always a kin totem which helps to sustain him. The chiefs have no votes in council; there the majority rules and the voice of the chief is not decisive till then. On the death of a chief, the nearest kinsman in the right line is eligible. If there are no kin, the council of the band can make a chief. Civil chiefs scarcely ever make a war party.”

 

·        A common confusion for many trying to understand Indigenous ways is the assumption of “like-for-like.”

·        That is assuming there is a one-to-one relationship between words in a language or concepts in a culture.

·        For example: The word “Power” in English usually connotes force or ability, whereas Comanche “Puha” which is often translated as one-to-one for power, can indeed mean strength, or ability but it is more culturally understood as Power+ that is…

·        “He is physically strong AND he is of character.”

·        Or…

·        “He knows many game trails AND he has integrity.”

·        Strong is one word, ability is another, character is another.

·        These can run as separate concepts in English or Westen culture but in Comanche culture to possess strength or ability WITHOUT character simply is not Puha.

·        Strength without Puha is nothing to be admired.

·        Power in the Western sense is Instagram-worthy whether or not the poster possesses any admirable character traits.

·        An alien concept in the Comanche way.

 

“In all these tribes there is no such thing as hereditary rank. If a son of a chief is wanting in bravery, generosity, or other desirable qualities, he is regarded merely as an ordinary individual”

·        Again, alien to Western culture founded upon bloodlines, royalty and fealty to family names: Kennedy et al.

 

“To preserve his popularity a chief must give away all his property, and he is consequently always the poorest man in the band.”

·        Again, alien to the Western concept of Power where enrichment and elevation of the material aspects is part and parcel of power.

·        In the Plains tradition and the eastern woodlands potlatch culture, power is signaled by service, by generosity, by the ability to sustain with less rather than “Gimme extra cuz I’m important.”

 

“Power is tacitly committed to the leading chief, to be held so long as he governs to general satisfaction, subject, however, to the advice of the soldiers.”

·        As long as Wisdom and good judgement is demonstrated, the role of Chief continues.

·        As soon as the Wisdom deviates—termination of services.

·        Power, Puha rather is contingent on ability not repute of ability or remembrance of past successes.

·        We are what we are with each act.

·        No fealty to the office.

·        All fealty is to the service.

 

“Age, debility, or any other natural defect, or incapacity to act, advise, or command, would lead a chief to resign in favor of a younger man.”

·        Notice it is not just age, but any infirmity or failing.

·        There were aged chiefs.

·        There were chiefs that possessed crippling bodily injuries who still served well.

·        As soon as these or any infirmity [lack of courage, indecisiveness, failure to lead to good game, etc.] manifested, the chiefdom was at its end.

 

Seems there is much to be learned from “A heathenish People savage and untutored.”