Donald A. Grinde

Although I cannot recall the name of the author, or the anthology and/or periodical in which it was contained, I have a distinct memory of reading an article entitled Is Equality Indigenous? in one of my college women's studies classes. It argued that the women's rights movement of 19th century America were greatly inspired by the more egalitarian gender norms to be found amongst the Iroquois peoples. (Does this sound familiar to you, reader? If so, write me, and let me know where to find this again. Nothing is more frustrating than a reference you can't run down...but, I digress). Passing reference was made in this same class to the influence that the Six Nations Confederacy had on the structure of the U.S. Constitution and our form of government. Imagine my pleasure, shortly after finishing Iroquois on Fire to discover a book-length exploration of just that thesis, published in 1977.

Grinde begins with a discussion of the story of Hiawatha and the prophet Deganawidah, who together united the five nations of the Iroqouis (later joined by the Tuscarora), into a confederation with their headquarters at Onondaga. He continues with a history of relations between the Confederacy and European settlers during the colonial period, and a comparison of their respective political philosophies at the time. Attention is paid to the similarities between the Constitution of the Six Nations and the Albany Plan of Union of 1754 (the full text of both are provided in the Appendices). Grinde then turns his attention to the Revolutionary War and its aftermath, concluding with an analysis of the lasting effects the Six Nations have had on the United States.

I am not well-enough informed about the historiography of the Iroquois to know whether this was the first major book to put forward this argument. Some of the wording leads me to suspect that it was. Howsoever that may be, I thought this book shed some much-needed light on a topic too-little investigated. Grinde's comparison of Deganawidah and John Locke in Chapter 2 was quite interesting, and I found it refreshing that it was the Native philosopher who was held up as the standard by which Locke and his peers were to be judged, as opposed to the other way around. Grinde's conclusion that this comparison revealed a "tragic flaw in the Lockean system"(20-21), must have taken some people aback (it probably still does).

I am sure that a book like this is frequently charged with that dreaded "R" word: Revisionism... To which I would respond: Which history is not revisionist? We are constantly discovering new evidence, be it textual or physical, and our understanding must keep pace. This thesis is well-documented and well-though-out, and as a student of classical antiquity and Ancient Greek, I can tell you that it makes more sense than the notion that the American colonists were imitating the Athenians of the 6th century BCE.

My only quibble with the book, and it is a (very) small one, is the identification of certain words as "Iroquois" in the first chapter. Grinde mentions a unit of social organization called an "otiianer"(1), but what language is this? Calling it Iroquois is like calling "madre" the "Romance Language" word for mother. Technically this is correct, but it would be more precise to say that this was a Spanish word. Which Iroquois language are we talking about? Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida....? Were these languages interchangeable at that point in history, or is it a term used in all of them? I know this seems nit-picky, but I've run into this before... (Write me if you know the answer).… (meer)