Reputation and Punishment
Within the Community
Interviewer - Earle Waugh, PhD.
Chief Standing Bear: "The way of the tribe in dealing with
an offender was simple and dignified. There was no violence
such as whipping, no taking away of personal effects nor
personal liberties, no hounding to persecuting, and no
pompous show of authority. When it became necessary for the
band to protect itself it did so by merely ignoring and
ostracizing the violator. Conversations, games, councils,
and ceremonies were carried on as if the disfavored one were
not about. This sort of punishment was usually sufficient to
make the offender change his habits. If the offense was a
minor one, such as bragging or strutting, then ridicule and
laughter sufficed to put a stop to it, but the boaster was
usually quickly detected and his glory short lived, for he
was as quickly resented as he was detected. On the other
hand, if a man’s offense were serious, say if he were a
murderer, his exclusion from the band would be permanent. He
would suffer neither for food nor clothing, but he would not
be welcome at the tipis of others and no one would visit his
tipi, In time of sickness he would be cared for by near
relatives, but he was never again accepted as a credible
member of his band … but cases of this kind among the Lakota
were very rare, and in all my life I have known only two or
three. There is no word in the Lakota language which can be
translated literally into the word ‘justice’; nevertheless,
there was the certain practice of it as evidence in the
phrase wowa un silaI, ‘a heart full of pity for all’" (qtd
Bunge 109).
The Prevention of Stupidity
or Foolish Actions by Band Members
Interviewer - Earle Waugh, PhD.
"A Comanche male who had suffered a legal wrong was under
social obligation to take action against the offender. For a
man not to do so was not looked upon as a social grace;
indeed, such behavior was a social disgrace. A man so acting
was stamped not as magnanimous, but as lily-livered.
Adultery and taking other’s wife were direct attacks upon
the prestige of the wife’s husband. Both acts were
unmistakable challenges which could not be ignored by the
man who would maintain enough face to make life livable.
Naturally, the aggrieved party was not always inclined to
act, nor was the reason always cowardice. If the wrong was
not made public, it is obvious that public opinion could not
drive a man to institute prosecution. Ridicule was the
weapon used by society to cause a man to proceed after the
cause for action had become public" (Hoebel 188-189).
|