Native American Empire

[monkspider]

The Iroquois Confederacy was, for all intents and purposes, an impressive empire by it's own right. Despite the natural handicap of being on the North American continent, it united 4 (and later 5) nations of Indians into one. It remained a considerable power even for some time after the Euros arrived.
Socially, the Iroquois more than made up for what scientific advancements that they lacked. In addition to practicing a primitive form of commnism, they also had a council with elected officials. Some have thought that their Democracy was influential on the pilgrim's creation of the Mayflower Compact.

[Caligastia]

"The northern tribes of the American red men never attained real statehood. They never progressed beyond a loose confederation of tribes, a very primitive form of state. Their nearest approach was the Iroquois federation, but this group of six nations never quite functioned as a state and failed to survive because of the absence of certain essentials to modern national life, such as:

1. Acquirement and inheritance of private property.

2. Cities plus agriculture and industry.

3. Helpful domestic animals.

4. Practical family organization. These red men clung to the mother-family and nephew inheritance.

5. Definite territory.

6. A strong executive head.

7. Enslavement of captives--they either adopted or massacred them.

8. Decisive conquests.

The red men were too democratic; they had a good government, but it failed. Eventually they would have evolved a state had they not prematurely encountered the more advanced civilization of the white man, who was pursuing the governmental methods of the Greeks and the Romans."

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Left alone, I have no doubt the Native Americans would have produced a complex civilization similar to those of Eurasia. It just would have happened thousands of years later. The process of achieving urban civilization relies on many factors being met, such as availability of surplus food to spur large population growth, regions of dense population to spawn artisan classes, etc. Considering the way of life and population density for most of the Native Americans, I think urban civilization would have been a long time coming.

May I actually point out that at the time of the Spanish landing, Tenochtitlan was supposed to be considerably larger than any European city. The Aztec Empire was pretty sophisticated, and were advancing.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
That's quite a cumbersome word.

When The Conquistadors met the Aztecs and other Indianoi they had no reason to justify anything. They merely recorded what they saw. The need of "Justification" of the extermination of Indianoi came to american life much much later.

Plus European history even in the dark ages or even in the Greek dark ages has not recorded anything of the homicidial and canibalistic magnitude of the Indianoi.

Human sacrifice was practiced in Europe as early as 5000 BC, and the Romans found it quite prevalent among the Celts, some Germanic tribes and the natives of Britain. In Egypt, China and other early civilizations, mass sacrifices were carried out, sometimes entombing hundred alive with dead rulers. It was common practice in many Eurasian civs to slaughter those they conquered (remember the fate of the sons of Troy, or the orders of the first Chinese emperor to kill the children of Qin, or the brutality of the Assyrians).

It is a little disingenuous to give the Aztecs some sort of special place as history's worst brutes. While indeed a brutal and horrific culture by the standards of those Europeans who discovered them, they weren't all that exceptional in history.

Regardless, it doesn't really answer Sprayber's question, as the sacrificial traditions of the Aztecs wouldn't necessarily prohibit the flowering of an Amerindian civilization.

Cali--what is that source? "red man?" Lord, is it from 1925 or something?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


May I actually point out that at the time of the Spanish landing, Tenochtitlan was supposed to be considerably larger than any European city. The Aztec Empire was pretty sophisticated, and were advancing.

Sorry, using standard American definitions:

Native Americans = North American natives.

Meso-Americans = Central and South Americans.

I did differentiate in the original post, ya know.

[Bereta_Eder]

I repeat: Aztecs were holding rituals in which thousand of people were having their hearts ripped out and then eaten by others.

This is sort of canibalism is unprecedented in history both in volume and in practice and only depicts the greusome monstrocity of an almost "satanic" societal scheme. Conquistadors vomited by the sight and the stench of this place. And Conquistadors were not pancies.

But you're right this is not what Sprayber was asking about.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Cali--what is that source? "red man?" Lord, is it from 1925 or something?

You should know the source. The post was by Caligastria after all.

Here is the page he took it from in The Book of Urantia:

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper71.html

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Cali--what is that source? "red man?" Lord, is it from 1925 or something?

The link is in my sig

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Canibalism was not that rare in indianoi (sorry it's silly not to have 2 different words for indians and american indians in the english language so from now on indanoi=american indians). Nor was human sacrifice that uncommon.

Boris was a little off, the term is Amerind not Amerindian.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh good lord...

[Boris Godunov]

Amerind is a shortening of Amerindian. AFAICT, both terms are used interchangeably to designate native American peoples, and either is as legitimate as the other. A quick Google search will turn up equal uses of both.

[Felch]

Who gives a **** what the term is? It's not like if we call them Amerinds it'll restore their sovereignty and give them back their dignity.

Some people are too obsessed with what things are called, and not concerned enough with what things are.

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Felch X
Who gives a **** what the term is? It's not like if we call them Amerinds it'll restore their sovereignty and give them back their dignity.

Some people are too obsessed with what things are called, and not concerned enough with what things are.

Amen to that.

[Ramo]

It's unlikely that any Amerindian civilization would have developed technological parity with the Eurasians unless they magically acquired large domesticatable animals (prior to any Eurasian invasion).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Felch X
Who gives a **** what the term is?

People that prefer not to call an outhouse a rose for one.

It's not like if we call them Amerinds it'll restore their sovereignty and give them back their dignity.

Whats that got to do with avoiding confusion?

Some people are too obsessed with what things are called, and not concerned enough with what things are.

Some people are so obsessed with ranting they forget that discussions about Indians could easily be on a Tamil thread.