Making Peace, the Navajo Way

Navajo Nation Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Yazzie.

Concerned grandparents of a soon to be born baby request a hozhooii naat’aanii, the Navajo peacemaking ceremony, to resolve the issue at hand: acknowledgment of paternity. The grandparents know of their daughter’s long term relationship with her boyfriend. He has denied that he is the father, and the family has no money or desire to proceed with expensive genetic testing. Instead, the naat’aanii  (“one who speaks wisely and well”) leads and facilitates the nalyieh (“talking out process”) by calling together the k’e(the affected community and clan).

Surrounded by people who know him and care, the father is able to say that paternity is not the real issue. He fears he won’t be able to meet his responsibility because he had recently lost his job. Once understood, the k’e made a way for him by providing him with a job cutting and delivering firewood, until he finds another position.

Navajo Tribal Judge Irene Toledo in Ramah Navajo District Court in New Mexico cites this case as an example of how the Navajo Peacemaker Resolution process works and how it differs from the larger Anglo legal system inside which it exists. Unlike the adversarial philosophy of the dominant, European-derived legal system, the peacemaker process is a type of healing ceremony, whose purpose is to restore harmony to the k’e by seeking the root causes of anti-social behavior. The peacemaker process then applies k’ei–the morals and principles of the Navajo way–to the situation. This is done prayerfully, with assistance from the Holy People, to bring greater solidarity to the entire k’e.

Conspicuous by its absence is the underlying sense of coercion that characterizes the patriarchal legal system of the United States. The peacemaker does not force a wrongdoer to comply with someone else’s will, a concept alien to Navajo thought about human relationships. Rather, the naat’aanii uses persuasive powers to guide the entire community back to hozho nahasdii, a state of beauty and harmony, with all parts of the whole functioning in their proper place.

When one is not accused, there is no need to defend. The naat’aanii focuses on relationships and one’s responsibility to them. “The right against self-incrimination in the Anglo system has made it almost impossible to reach the truth,” says James W. Zion, Navajo Tribal Court Administrator in Window Rock, Arizona. Without this sense of isolation and retribution, so characteristic of the Anglo system, the peacemaker process can begin the real work of restoring harmony by recognizing and dealing with how conduct affects the entire k’e.

If the paternity case mentioned above were tried in the Anglo court system, the grandparents probably would not have “standing” (a court recognized legal interest) to participate in the process. By contrast, in the Navajo way, the grandparents’ presence and concern encouraged successfully resolving the problem, because of the father’s sense of community. The Navajo saying “he acts as if he has no relatives” captures the quintessence of the peacemaker’s effectiveness.

The peacemaker resolution process was locked away in memory for many years. Then, during a legal proceeding, an elder mentioned, “we used to do it this way … ” The tribal court justices, sensitive to the shortcomings of the imposed European system, decided to incorporate the old peacemaker way into the tribal court system. It was re-instituted in 1982.

“The Bureau of Indian Affairs did such a good job of brainwashing us that we forgot we had something of value from our own culture and tradition,” says Navajo Nation Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Yazzie. He received his law degree from the University of New Mexico in 1982.

All 14 Navajo tribal justices refer cases to a peacemaker when appropriate, or tribal members can request one on their own. The hozhooji naat’aanii has been used successfully to resolve a variety of problems, from domestic violence to grazing disputes to DWI cases.

“In the traditional way, major offenses may have led to ostracism, and perhaps suicide,” explains Tribal Court Administrator Zion. Severe crimes like murder and armed robbery are still subject to the sanctions of the Anglo system, but the peacemaker way can be used as an adjunct to restore community relations. As an example, Chief Justice Yazzie recounts a case in which the offender in a negligent homicide received both prison time under the Anglo penal code, as well as participating in a peacemaker process to talk out the situation and pay restitution to the victim’s family.

The success of the peacemaker process has received world wide attention, and Chief Justice Yazzie and others have been asked to speak on it before such diverse groups as the government of Canada, the American Bar Association, indigenous peoples in the South Pacific and South Africa, and Harvard Law School. Studying the Navajo peacemaker system was largely responsible for Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommending recognition and sovereignty to traditional tribal justice systems.

Those carrying the Navajo peacemaker message have found similar justice systems were or are presently in place within indigenous societies the world over. Other peoples “used to do it that way,” too. Talks on the Navajo peacemaker system have rekindled interest in the viability and efficacy of traditional tribal justice for Native peoples, as well as an alternative to the increasingly ineffective European/dominator system. According to Zion, one Anglo group that has successfully adapted such a system is the Society of Friends, or Quakers, who patterned their own system after that of the Mohawk Nation.

The peacemaker system differs from the Anglo system of mediation and arbitration, which is still based on an adversarial model. Chief Justice Yazzie says, “Mediation and arbitration employ a person who does not know the parties. The Navajo peacemaker is not an impartial judge but a kind of spiritual guide who knows the parties and leads them back to a state of harmony through proper relationship.” Peacemaking is used to get the victim’s point of view and to immerse the perpetrator in relationship to the k’e. This is done with the presence of clan and the use of stories and symbols that meaningfully express k’ei.

For example, in a DWI case, a drunk driver might hear from parents who are concerned for their children’s safety, the friend who would lose his car that he loaned if it were wrecked, or feelings of embarrassment expressed by the perpetrator’s family. In a land dispute, the peacemaker might tell a traditional story about a dispute between Lightning and Horned Toad (see accompanying story).

Through this story, the peacemaker puts the parties in a conciliatory position, recognizing the true owner of the land. With the proper sense of humility, effective compromise can be reached, and harmony re-established.

The peacemaker process has been employed successfully in hundreds of cases, according to anecdotal reports. Recently, a graduate student with a grant from Temple University has begun a formalized study of the system.

Chief Justice Yazzie urges tribal college faculty and students to talk to their own elders and learn of their own heritage of justice and to become leaders in reintegrating those traditions within their tribes. “We have a way of justice that reflects our values and culture, and we need to use it instead of resorting to the European system,” he says.

Sharon Witmer is a recovering lawyer from the Anglo justice system and an erratic contributor to the Tribal College Journal.

For further reading:

“Hozhooji Naat’aanii:  The Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony,” by Philmer Bluehouse, James W. Zion, Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, Summer l993.

“Life Comes From It:  Navajo Justice Concepts,” by Hon. Robert Yazzie (unpublished paper, Navajo Tribe, Window Rock AZ.

“Bridging the Cultural Divide:  A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada,” Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, l996

The Cheyenne Way, by Karl N. Llewellyn and E. Adamson Hoebel, University of Oklahoma Press, 1941.

The following relevant films are available on video: “Angelo, My Love,” a film on the gypsy justice system; and “The Last Wave,” a film on the Australian aborigine justice system.

Horned Toad v. Lightning

Before humans assumed their present form, the Holy People had their own problems to address. During that time, Lightning and Horned Toad had a dispute. Horned Toad was walking on some land when suddenly Lightning confronted Horned Toad and asserted that he, Lightning, owned the land, and Horned Toad must leave immediately. Horned Toad replied, “My brother, I don’t understand why you should have possession of this land, and I certainly don’t lay claim to it.” He continued along.

Again, Lightning asserted his claim, and he threw a bolt of lightning as a warning. Horned Toad said, “I am very humble, and I can’t hurt you as you can hurt others with your bolt of lightning. Could we talk about this tomorrow?”

The following day, Horned Toad arrived, wearing his armor. Lightning announced his arrival and asserted his power by throwing more lightning bolts at Horned Toad. Horned Toad said, “You are very powerful; you can certainly strike me down with a bolt of lightning.” “I certainly can,” said Lightning.

“That’s not what we are here about,” said Horned Toad. “We are here to discuss the land ownership issue, and we must talk.” “There is nothing to discuss: the land is mine!” Lightning got angry and threw another bolt of lightning, which hit Horned Toad. “Brother, you did not hurt me,” he said. The bolt bounced off Horned Toad’s armor. “Brother,” he said, “this armor was given to me by the same source as your bolts of lightning. Why is it we are arguing over the land, which was also loaned to us?”