Government and Tribal Leadership of the Native Americans

Introduction

During the pre-contact era, the Choctaw Tribe consisted of three geographical, political districts. They included; Ahepvt (potato eaters), Okla Falaya (long people), and Okla Hannali (six towns), which were located in North-east, west, and south of the Choctaw homeland (Fabussa, 2010). Currently, this region is situated in the south of the United States. The overall form of government for the Mississippi Band of Choctaws was democratic (Brescia, 1982). However, each district had villages, which owned a separate and independent government. The tribe had the chiefdom form of government which was later altered by the US constitution from the 1830s. However, the leader of the tribe has maintained his title as Chief, despite the changes.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Who Led the Mississippi Band of Choctaws?

The Choctaw people were led by a Council, made up of village and town leaders. However, the ranks were observed. For instance, the most potent position was owned by the council of elderly village chiefs, warriors, and those who were respectable due to their wisdom. The supreme and executive powers resided in these parties. Minko (district chief) acted as the head of the council and had the power to call the council for a discussion pertaining public matters, peace, and war, and making final decisions on complaints and differences (Brescia, 1982). However, it is essential to note that he did not own exclusive executive powers.

Next in rank was the War Chief (Tvshkamiko). He exercised and represented the dignity and power of Minko in his absentia in a council meeting. His authority was entirely dependent on Minko although he could lead warrior while the latter is in an expedition. These roles, therefore, makes him the War chief (Fabussa, 2010). This leader was mostly elderly and was chosen on the basis that during his youth, he was a distinguished warrior due to his subtlety, valor, and intrepidity. He was assisted by two little war chiefs (Tvshkamikuhi).

Third in the rank was the High priest who was found in every town, and presided over spiritual matters. This position, therefore, maintained great influence over the Choctaw people and especially to the military. He offered counsel to the council before going on an expedition against its enemies.

Finally, the Tishimiko (servant chiefs) acted as the Chief's spokesmen and performed other duties such as organizing ceremonies and dances. They helped the chosen leaders to perform their duties effectively (Fabussa, 2010). These people mostly were suitable candidates to succeed in the chiefs in the future.

How Were Decisions Made? Which Member of the Society Had a Voice in Decision Making?

In this society, only men had the mandate to participate in the decision-making meetings. The men involved in decision-making were categorized into for distinct groups: the first group was comprised of leaders in office who also led the process. Second, in rank were the Halitopa (beloved men), who were highly respected and carried the traditions of the society (fabussa, 2010). Tvshka, (warriors) occupied the third rank while the Attack (young men) held the lowest level in decision making.

Since this tribe was highly symbolic and spiritual, all important matters were discussed around the fire or when during the day as the sun shines brightly. The white color was used during a discussion about peaceful relations or civil matters while the red color signified matters of war. While small issues could be solved by any of the four in the rank, major decisions on essential matters of the tribe were handled by the council of leaders only. Before the beginning of the meeting, they smoked and passed on the tobacco pipe, which they believed carried their words to God (fabussa, 2010). Afterward, members give their points of view uninterruptedly, and finally, the leader gave his opinion. If approved by the council, it was executed.

Are There Remnants of the Traditional Ways of Leadership Evident in the Tribe Today? If So, What Are They?

After this tribe came into contact with the Europeans, much of its political life changed. The 1825 US constitution was adopted as from 1834. The old council was renamed as the senate and other 27 representatives chosen. The two-house approval on legal matters made the modified system ineffective. In 1860, the new US constitution was adopted again, making the tribe to have three branches of government; legislative, executive and the judiciary. Its tree districts were subdivided into counties. The new constitution respected their traditional ways of leadership. Although the three districts were subdivided into counties, each district had their Chief and other officials who carried out their duties as dictated by the constitution. There was also the Principal Chief who has higher powers than the district chiefs. However, as from 1977 to date, there is no Principle chief, and their leader is just addressed as Chief (Cherokee Natuion, n.d). Women, just like in their traditional ways of leadership, are recognized as the heads of the family and are highly respected as the life-givers and care-takers of elders and children at home. Although much of their tradition seems to be erased, traces of their leadership are still evident.

Talk About the Idea of Collectivism and How It Relates to Traditional Leadership and the Leadership in Mississippi Band of Choctaws (If It Does).

Collectivism is a principle characterized by valuing the cohesiveness among a group of individuals and prioritizing their needs and goals over self. Individualism, on the contrary, is where the needs of the individual are prioritized. These two cultures have significant influence over the current forms of government and the traditional ones. In most traditional forms of governing, collectivism was practiced more than the individualism. They believed in "we," which gave greater value to the shared goals. This culture allowed them to overshadow personal desires in achieving goals and instead encouraged everyone in their social group to do the same. Societies that employed collectivism in their leadership had distinct characteristics. For instance; there is always high regard for the group, high dependence on other people, cooperation, emphasis on duties towards the community, intense group pressure and high regard for values such as friendship hospitality and brotherhood. This culture was valued in traditional leadership due to its immense advantages. Much could be achieved whenever there is cooperation than when people are divided, instances of war and famine, for instance, are good examples of such instances.

The Mississippi Band of Choctaws was also a collectivist society. This tribe emphasized sharing, generosity, and collectivity, which were expressed through ceremonies and other cultural activities. Sports, stickball, visiting each other, sharing, community gathering and feasting, and mothers taking care of children and the elderly are examples of indicators of the collectivist culture in the Mississippi Band of Choctaws (Fabussa, 2010). However, there were traces of individualism in the tribe, especially in the search for leadership. The young people who aspired rise in power were expected to prove successful in all men activities. As such, one was expected to win in activities such as war and stickball, and continued success would earn him local positions such as being the Chief's spokesperson. With additional success, one could become a village chief and later a district chief if he proves himself more popular.

The Mississippi band of Choctaw is among many Native American tribes who, due to contact with the Europeans and civilization has led to the elimination of their traditional form of government. The chiefs and other leaders embraced the collectivist culture, which enabled them to maintain a peaceful co-existence. Men were the decision-makers while women acted as the heads of the families, a trait they embrace to date. While most of the traditions of leadership were wiped out by the US constitution, some traces, such as the leader addressed as Chief, are still evident.

References

Brescia, W. (1982). Choctaw Tribal Government: A New Era. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED232837.pdf

Cherokee Nation. (n.d). A brief history of the Choctaw Nation. Retrieved from https://fivecivilizedtribes.cherokee.org/Five-Tribes/Choctaw/Choctaw-History

Fabussa, I. (2010). Early political structure. Retrieved from www.choctawnation.com/sites/default/files/2015/10/14/2010.04_Early_political_structure.pdf