Q&A: How the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy came to be

Nearly 100 years ago, the federal government ordered a new governance system to replace the traditional forms of governance that Indigenous communities held for centuries — the effects of which are still felt and discussed today.

For the Six Nations, the most populous First Nation in Canada, the traditional form of governance didn't fade away. It exists separately as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that remains unrecognized by Ottawa.

A McMaster University professor and member of the Mohawk nation, Turtle clan, from Six Nations of the Grand River Territory recently shared his research on the impact of the order on Oct. 7, 1924, at the Woodland Cultural Centre in Brantford, Ont. 

Richard Monture spoke with CBC Kitchener-Waterloo in advance of that presentation. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What was the traditional governance system that existed before it was changed in 1924?

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy governance system is based on the Kaianere'kó:wa, the Great Law of Peace, established about 1,000 years ago in our traditional territories and what is now upstate New York.

It's a system based on matrilineal descent where the women, the clan mothers, chose our leaders. It's a long story as to how that whole system was conceived, developed and enacted. It's what's been called the oldest form of democracy, where leaders served the people, as opposed to the other way around, which is what happened in Europe at the time.

Q: We have spoken a few times with elected Chief Mark Hill from the Six Nations of the Grand River. Explain which form of government he leads.

He leads what is known as the elected council at Six Nations. That was the system that was put in place by Ottawa in 1924. 

There were a lot of things that led up to that particular moment when the overthrow happened. There were some members of Six Nations who were in favour of an elected system — it was a more progressive kind of modern system. It allowed bigger representation across the political body of the reserve. 

But it was always the one sanctioned by Ottawa under the Indian Act. It was always overseen by the Indian agent, like every First Nation, community and reserve in Canada at that time.

Q: How does this fit in with the bigger conversations around Truth and Reconciliation and the land back movement?

A: Our traditional governance system resonated with the founding fathers of the United States. They appropriated a lot of our images, a lot of our imagery. For example, the presidential seal of the United States has 13 arrows bound in its talons, that's one of the symbols that our people talked about when we first formed the Confederacy of Nations, the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. 

These are the kind of echoes from the past that is direct evidence of our Confederacy Council being an effective body of leadership.

We continued to work with Canada as it became a country to let them know about this. But they saw fit to put the Indian Act in place and move forward with this process of assimilation. This was the same time period in which residential schools were getting underway. They were trying to squash traditional governments across Canada as a way to modernize native people into a Canadian model. 

A lot of lands were taken during this time across Canada — not just Six Nations.

Q: Where does this cause friction with the Assembly of First Nations?

We have, I would say, an amicable understanding that Six Nations has always maintained our sovereignty because of our old form of government and all the agreements that we've had in place over the years. We have respect for the Assembly of First Nations. But we don't directly fall under their authority.

We do the best we can to get by, but we do have some fundamental differences. But that doesn't mean that we can't work together, either.

Q: What do you hope to learn from the community as you continue your research?

We wanted to have a community dialogue about it because 1924 has become this pivotal moment in our community.

Whenever you hear this specific date, you immediately know what that means and how it's impacted our community. It's been divisive, yes. But we're still here. We're the largest First Nation in Canada. 

The people who directly experienced that event are no longer with us. A lot of these things have taken on their own life in terms of the mythology and the stories told. I want to talk about fact and fiction and just have this initial dialogue because we want to commemorate the 100th anniversary in three years. This is just the very beginning of that conversation.