Lacrosse Blogs

Some Thoughts on the Decision by the Iroquois Nationals Not to go to Manchester

By Ted Montour

One question, asked in different forms covering the spectrum of understanding and civility, seems to arise lately more than any other. As to the decision by the Board, staff and players of the Iroquois Nationals, to turn down alternative remedies to the problems associated with trying to travel to England on their Haudenosaunee passports, and ultimately to withdraw from the 2010 World Championships:

Why?

Why insist that Haudenosaunee passports were the only travel documents acceptable to themselves? Why, at least in the case of those born or based in the US, refuse the offer of expedited US passports and one-time travel waivers? And why deprive these young men of the opportunity to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime, or a for-the-last-time, event, for the sake of “politics”?

The issue of Haudenosaunee or Iroquois sovereignty is central to the reasoning of the Iroquois Nationals, in keeping with the policies, practices, and laws of the Iroquois Confederacy and Council. The Great Law is the foundation of the Confederacy, its constitution, embodying the principles of peace and mutual respect and alliance to which the Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Mohawk and Tuscarora nations agreed. It was a central model for the ‘framers’ of the US Constitution, and predates US independence and Canadian confederation by a millennium (give or take a generation or two).

The Haudenosaunee entered into international treaties with the British monarch and successor governments. Those treaties, in the view of the Iroquois, are not diminished or extinguished by any failure or refusal by those successor governments – the United States and Canada, for those who have been having trouble following along – to ratify or adhere to them. These treaties are still in force, under international law. The terms, indeed the very existence, of these treaties, acknowledge and recognize Haudenosaunee sovereighty.

Another principle, shared with many Indian societies, is that of decision by consensus. Simply put, a decision is deemed made when everyone involved has discussed and agreed on both the question and the response. There is no vote, no ‘majority rule’ . [I use the term “Indian” here  advisedly; I do consider it racist, demeaning or antiquated, rather I am a proponent of the interpretation most famously articulated by George Carlin. Look it up.]

So, for a group of individuals, even a team representing the Haudenosaunee and playing the Creator’s Game, to accept identification and travel authorization from another government, for the expediency of being able to compete, is unthinkable. It would be tantamount to the 1980 US summer Olympic team accepting Mexican passports in order to circumvent the political decision of the US government to boycott the Moscow Games.