Great Law of Peace

What Stood Out & Why It Matters

1) Tutorial framing

  • The point isn’t to have “the correct answer.”

  • Goal: shift perspective and ask:

    • What stood out as different/surprising?

    • What’s similar to Western institutions?

    • What would we gain if this was in the canon earlier?

    • What assumptions does this challenge (Hobbes/Locke/Mill, realism, etc.)?

2) Key student observations

A. Undermines “Indigenous peoples = incapable/savage” narrative

  • The Confederacy’s organization + shared purpose directly contradicts classic Western claims about Indigenous “ungovernability.”

  • Strong example of how Hobbes/Locke used secondhand colonial stories (not firsthand knowledge) to justify “state of nature” claims.

Tutorial hook: “They weren’t describing reality; they were describing a colonial story about reality.”

B. Respect + trust + inclusion (but structured)

Students highlighted:

  • Welcoming logic of the Tree of Peace (roots extending outward; people can join if minds are “clean” and they accept the law).

  • Predictability and order: there are rules about who speaks, when, and how.

  • It isn’t “loose” or informal—there’s real institutional procedure.

Important nuance raised: Some modern “restorative circles” borrow the look (sitting in a circle) but miss the institutional depth (law, roles, etiquette, obligations).

C. Bureaucracy & institutional design parallels Western systems

Students noticed:

  • “Committees” / layered review structures.

  • Grand Council as a formal decision body.

  • Consensus as a decision rule.

Comparisons made:

  • NATO consensus (everyone must agree)

  • UN Security Council (some similarity in a small number of powerful decision-makers, though the Great Law is consensus-based rather than veto-politics)

D. “Why didn’t Europeans learn from this?”

Students questioned the contradiction:

  • Europeans call Indigenous peoples “uncivilized,” yet European societies had revolutions and instability.

  • Meanwhile the Confederacy produced long-term stability.

Instructor responses / explanations offered in discussion:

  • Colonial stereotypes spread through early published accounts (e.g., explorers).

  • Conflict + alliance politics shaped perceptions (e.g., French alliances with Algonquin peoples; “Iroquois” as a derogatory term).

  • Popular culture still reinforces stereotypes (example used: crime/TV narratives).

Link to last week: This maps directly onto Orientalism—producing an “Other” to justify domination.

E. Important critique: “Indigenous” as a flattening label

A student made a key methodological point:

  • Calling it “Indigenous IR” can become a kind of new Orientalism if it lumps diverse nations into one category.

  • Example raised: Pipe ceremony isn’t universal (varies by region/nation).

Tutorial gold: “Even the category can reproduce the problem it tries to fix.”

F. Peace is central — but coercion exists

Students flagged a tension:

  • The Great Law of Peace prioritizes persuasion and diplomacy,

  • but after repeated refusal, the Confederacy can use conquest to enforce peace.

This led to a bigger point:

  • Peace ≠ absence of violence.

  • War can be framed as “for peace” (echoes of later Western “civilizing” logics—though the instructor notes important differences and nuance).

G. Gender and legitimacy

A strong “what stood out” point:

  • Clan mothers play a major role in selection and legitimacy.

  • This contrasts with most Eurocentric systems and links to why feminist approaches later in the course matter.

3) Canon implications (the big “so what?” question)

The group considered: If this were taught early (week 3) as part of the canon, what changes?

Student answers:

  • It would “demystify” Western philosophers (Machiavelli/Hobbes/Locke wouldn’t feel like universal truth).

  • It would show “civilization” isn’t uniquely Western.

  • It would make later theories easier to critique because you’d already have a counter-example.

Instructor’s prompt:

  • Maybe the “utopia” the West later imagines (Kant, Concert of Europe, liberal peace) already existed elsewhere.

  • Canon = constructed by what was included/excluded, not “natural.”

4) Realism debate (the recurring class theme)

Core question: If a non-European system maintained stability for centuries, does that weaken realist “timeless” claims?

Key points from the discussion:

  • Realists often say “that’s just the way the world works.”

  • The Confederacy suggests international systems can be organized around different premises:

    • shared values

    • conflict resolution

    • institutions

    • consensus

Counterpoint raised:

  • “Scale and context matter” (smaller system, different resource pressures, different tech).

  • Modern capitalism/resource extraction changes incentives dramatically (nature treated as exploitable, not sacred/shared).

5) Useful “tutorial-ready” one-liners you can use

  • “Hobbes didn’t observe Indigenous anarchy; he inherited a colonial narrative.”

  • “It’s not just ‘talking in a circle’—it’s law + roles + procedure + accountability.”

  • “Calling something ‘Indigenous IR’ can reproduce the same flattening logic as Orientalism.”

  • “Peace can be the goal and violence can still be a tool—this complicates simple moral binaries.”

  • “The canon doesn’t discover truth; it selects what counts as truth.”

6) If you need a short paragraph response (ready to submit)

If you want, you can paste this as a tutorial reflection:

The Great Law of Peace stood out because it directly undermines the Hobbes/Locke image of Indigenous peoples as living in “anarchy” without governance. What surprised me most was how institutionalized the Confederacy was: leadership legitimacy, structured procedures, layered deliberation, and consensus-based decision rules that resemble (and in some ways exceed) later Western institutions like NATO-style consensus norms. At the same time, the discussion raised an important tension: the Great Law universalizes peace but still allows coercion if persuasion fails, which complicates the idea that peace traditions are non-violent. The tutorial also highlighted how Eurocentric stereotypes were produced and reproduced—through colonial accounts, alliance politics, and even popular culture—and how even the category “Indigenous IR” risks flattening diverse nations into a single “Other.” If this had been included earlier in the canon, it would likely change how we treat realism’s claim to timeless universality by showing that long-lasting international order can be built on different assumptions than perpetual insecurity.