Called the Iroquois Confederacy by the French, and the League of Five Nations by the English, the confederacy is properly called the Haudenosaunee Confederacy meaning People of the long house. The confederacy was founded by the prophet known as the Peacemaker with the help of Aionwatha, more commonly known as Hiawatha. The exact date of the joining of the nations is unknown and said to be time immemorial making it one of the first and longest lasting participatory democracies in the world.

The confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas was intended as a way to unite the nations and create a peaceful means of decision making. Through the confederacy, each of the nations of the Haudenosaunee are united by a common goal to live in harmony. Each nation maintains it own council with Chiefs chosen by the Clan Mother and deals with its own internal affairs but allows the Grand Council to deal with issues affecting the nations within the confederacy.

The Haudenosaunee symbol of the long house, provided by the Peacemaker, is recognized in traditional geographic locations. Upon confederation each nation took on a role within the metaphorical longhouse with the Onondaga being the Keepers of the Fire. The Mohawk, Seneca and Onondaga acted as the Elder Brothers of the confederacy while the Cayuga and Oneida were the Younger Brothers within Grand Council. The main meeting place was and still exists today on Onondaga territory.

the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s constitution is believed to be the oldest, participatory democracy on Earth. What makes it stand out as unique to other systems around the world is its blending of law and values. For the Haudenosaunee, law, society and nature are equal partners and each plays an important role.

Haudenosaunee’s Legendary Founding

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
  • 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

  • ClimateChangeAnxiety@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    As a chronically late person, honestly after years of feeling bad about it I’ve come back around the other side and now whenever I hear someone complain about another person being late, it just makes me want to be even later out of spite.

    Imma be honest, it’s just not that big of a deal when people are late. It’s fine! Sure if you’re like an hour or more late to shit all the time that’s one thing, but never once has someone being 10 minute late to something bothered me.

    If you’re upset about employees being late, that’s on you for not scheduling properly. You should never have so few people scheduled that someone being late or even calling out entirely even registers as a problem.

    Something I was taught by the best manager I’ve ever had was that you should always schedule 30% more staff than is required to get the job done. People get sick, are late, and have emergencies. Shit happens and if you’re running your schedule on 1:1 shift replacements and tiny margins you’re going to run into problems. But for some reason 99% of managers think if they actually did their job well, which necessitates bringing their labor% over like 15%, the universe would implode.

    I no longer desire the ability to be on time. I just want everyone else to calm the fuck down about everything all the time.

    • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      nope. Being on time is a matter of keeping your word. Fuck bosses and all that but if you are late when you have agreed to be there for a comrade you are being a LIB who is putting their own whims above the collective. If you cant meet to get a coffee or go to a protest on time how could you be trusted for more important revolutionary tasks?

    • RION [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      ¯\_༼ •́ ͜ʖ •̀ ༽_/¯ for me, if someone’s chronically late without working to mitigate it somehow it comes across as disrespect—that they value their time so far above mine (or whoever else is involved in the scheduled event) that they’re not going to bother making an effort

      • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I do make an effort to be on time, I set a thousand alarms and wake up far earlier than I should need to and still end up consistently 10-15 minutes later than I expect. I do this solely because I know it annoys people and I don’t want to make people unhappy.

        But calling it disrespectful seems like a far stretch when it doesn’t go the other way. I would never feel disrespected by someone being late. In fact if anything I find it pretty annoying when people are super on time, because I’m usually not and it makes me feel rushed.

        In a pre-clock society, no one would be expected to be on time within 15 minutes, and things got on fine. It’s only disrespectful because our cultural norms value being on time to things, and my point is I don’t like that cultural norm.

        • RION [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          But calling it disrespectful seems like a far stretch when it doesn’t go the other way. I would never feel disrespected by someone being late.

          That’s definitely not how it’s works. Just because you wouldn’t feel disrespected doesn’t mean it’s not disrespectful to others

          • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            If two people agree to meet, one person is annoyed by lateness, one person is annoyed by strict time restraints, why is only the first person allowed to be bothered?

            It’s a difference in preference and importance of timing, but only one side is allowed to be annoyed while the other is expected to work really hard to conform to the first, and told it’s a moral failing.