Philosophy in Sagoyewatha’s Speeches

Sagoyewatha (1758?-1830) was an orator and chief of the Seneca, an Iroquois people living in what is today western New York state. His Speeches are records of his intelligent defense of the Seneca way of life as the United States threatened to crush Native American peoples and their cultures, and take their lands, rather than coexist with them.

For instance, in a “Council at Buffalo Creek in the Summer, 1805”, a Christian missionary proposed to “instruct,” “remove errors,” “open eyes,” of the Seneca people regarding how to worship the “Great Spirit” (God) in a manner agreeable to Him. [12a]

After deliberation by the Council, Sagoyewatha responded: “Our eyes are opened, that we see clearly” thanks to the Great Spirit only. This was an assertion of the only, monotheistic authority recognized by the Seneca—their Great Spirit.

Sagoyewatha then retold the story of the encounter between European and Native American peoples in North America from the Seneca perspective: The Great Spirit created the world and caused it to be good for Seneca and other Native peoples. Disputes between them about hunting grounds were quickly resolved without much blood. [12b]. This was an account of causality in the natural and social world—the Great Spirit causes natural events and cycles and favorable conditions for peace, while shifts in the white social order were due to their murdering the son of the Great Spirit.

Then, Sagoyewatha continued, Europeans came to their land “for fear of wicked men” and “to enjoy their religion.” But they had taken land and country from the Natives and then, ironically, wanted to take away their religion. [13a]

To the assertion by the missionary that “you [Christian Europeans] are right and we are lost,” Sagoyewatha retorted: “How should we know this to be true?” [13a]. This was an epistemological question. Sagoyewatha responded: Certainly, not by the actions of the Europeans, who cheat “Indians” and quarrel about religion.

The evidence suggested rather that the “Great Spirit had made us all, but he has made a great difference between his white and red children.” They have different complexions and customs, why not different religions “according to our understanding”? [13a] In other words, while he offered a monogenetic account of origins—all human beings have the same origin—he offered a pluralistic teleology—different peoples have different ends or purposes, different telos.

The ironic proposal to the missionary by the Chiefs’ Council was to instruct his own people. If he succeed, the Seneca would reconsider accepting missionaries to teach Christian doctrines. [13b]

In his later “Address to a Missionary”, Sagoyewatha responded to a request to take Seneca boys to be educated at Christian schools: “We believe that the Great Spirit made the whites and the Indians, but for different purposes” [14a]. And he used irony by telling the missionary: Your ills are well-deserved, as you say you destroyed the son of God. But in compassion, we will send you our missionaries to teach you our religion, habits, and customs. [14b]

His argument relied on the evidence that the lives of the Seneca people were happy, peaceful, and blessed: “The Great Spirit is pleased that we follow the traditions and customs of our forefathers.” [14a]

And he proposed to observe if the white missionaries succeed in instructing their own people. In this regard, Sagoyewatha articulated a proto-pragmatist view: “Let us know the tree by the blossoms, and the blossoms by the fruit.” This means that beliefs are meaningful in so far as they have conceivable or actual practical effects. In other words, the meaning of concepts lies in their conceivable practical consequences, in the way they guide action. This would be the pragmatist method later advanced by American philosophers Charles Peirce and William James.

Note: Text cited from Leonard Harris, Scott Pratt, and Anne Waters (Eds.), American Philosophies: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).