Technically speaking, yup..pretty much.
Only if you erroneously use the broadest sense of the term. We find in modern science, that the term may be applied only to those people of the Paleolithic era.
The problem with this term is that it applies to advancement by achieving the ability of metal working. So yes, First Nations may have used stone implements, but when metal was found on the surface or VG (visible gold) was found, it was used as ornamentation. Thus placing them outside this label, rudimentary, but outside none the less.
The application of this label is further proven erroneous by the very fact that it was a term coined to describe the archeological cultures of Europe, and not the Americas. Metal work was not a serious feature, nor was it a necessity in the advancement of the First Nations.
So technically speaking, and not, your position is still wrong...;-)
Actually Bear, in some respects they were both.
The estimated dating of the confedaration from the mid 1140s (from your link) is about 70 years before the Magna Carta was written in England. Thats a long time (1500 years or so) after the Roman and Athenian Republics were founded (and there were thought to be some democracies prior to them as well). So no, they weren't the first, but there may definately be some meat to claims on being one of the longest running participatory democracies, and the attitude towards women seems in some senses far advanced over most of Western Europe.
My error, I sould have qualified the first in North America, and the longest runing, my apologies.
As to our placement of women in society. It was, was being the key word, a matriachal sociey. In some cases it still was during my youth. My Grand father may have been the King of his castle, but the Queen, my Grand Mother, definitely ruled the roost, lol.
The other thing is when you say "First Nations" are you just referring to the Iroquois in this case or including other groups?
For the most part. I' Onondaga and therefore my history is what I am most knowledgable in.
Peoples like the Mayans, Incans and Aztec? Not all of these groups were democratic, and some were highly advanced in different areas as well, like engineering and architecture. On the other hand ones like the Blackfeet were aggressive, hostile and almost backwards in their natures, viewing most of their neighbours (such as the Crow for example) as "shadow people" to be taken advantage of as they saw fit, and used primarily as targets for war to keep the skill of their warriors up and provide slaves (in a lot ways reminiscent of the attitude my Germanic forbearers had towards the Slavs in the late middle ages).
Though you are correct, it is in the definition of 'war' that one would need to dig to find the a better perspective. For 'war' as the Europeans knew it was conquest, whereas in the Nations, Counting Coup, was also war. It was the preferred method of gaining status as a Warrior, and a commen method of determining the victor. Counting Coup, was not always violent, nor deadly. It could simply be as benign as infeltarting another Nations encampment and taking a Warriors feather, or other item as proof.
"European" technology was more advanced but in large part I think that was also because it wasn't as isolated: there were interactions between the Europeans, Africa, and Asia and ideas were exchanged as well as commerce (and wars). I don't think the "native" North American cultures would have "caught up" just because of that fact alone. Its like having one lab researching something compared to 3 or 4: that lone lab isn't going to be able to compete (unless its as large as the rest put together).
I tend to think that human nature drives man to advance. But that is merely an opinion. I could be right or wrong. As a people, many First Nations, minus the Noble Savage image, were able to master their environment. That in no way means they would have caught up I guess, they would have had to have some influence from the outside to do as you exampled. But given the time, they would have evolved technically, I think.
[quoting CDNBear
So I ask, were we really so stone aged?
I don't think "Stone Age" describes the first nations as they were found by Europeans arriving in North America. "Stone Age", in my mind brings up a picture of a bunch of people with low foreheads grunting in a cave. That was not the first nations.
SCB says you've never been to one of my family reunions, lol...;-)
If we look at what they wanted most from the Europeans, it was Guns, wool blankets, steel tools, cooking utensils, and stuff like flour and sugar, which they adapted to almost instantly. The native Americans were five hundred years or more behind the Europeans in technology and other things like written language, literature and so on, but not "stone aged".
I agree.
lol
Um, I agree for the most part, but not with "Though technology is a monumental achievement in the forward movement of mans dominion over his environment." It isn't forward. It is sideways, backwards, and only sometimes forward. For instance, we developed stuff that enable us to live in huge masses of groups, yet in our "forward" thinking ways, where we plunked those massive groups of living quarters (and their appendages like stores, offices, etc.) is right on land that fed us and then we proceeded to explode in poulation (which needs more food) and hence needed more space to put people. Now THAT's freakin backwards.
Now that you mention it, I agree. I oft consider the thought behind rezoning agro land for housing developements as I watch land slowly gobbled up to house the masses.
Only some natives were warriors; some were fishers, some were hunters, some were farmers, etc. Most would fight if necessary, but only when necessary.
This is true, but most men were expected to be Warriors.
I'd much prefer something like what the Swiss have; a democratic republic. As I have mentioned before, it is the PEOPLE there that have the final say on things, not politicians and they exercise their power more than just once in 4 or 5 years, too, unlike our system.
You've mentioned this in the past, I still agree.
The Blackfeet were from Quebec originally and were displaced by settler encroachment in their territory. They spent nearly two hundred years fighting their way across the prairies, being pushed and harasser by the Cree for the most part. When they arrived at the Rockies, they displaced the Kutenai (Ktunaxa) over the Rockies to present day Creston area in the East Kootenays.
Most of the blood shed between tribes recorded in "White" history were the result of settler displacement and conquest. It was European interference and disease that created "savages" out of otherwise agrarian societies.
Something to which I wish I could agree. In the case you sighted, you may be correct, but there are instances where war was made simply over land and hunting, long before European incroachment.
First Nations, Stone aged or Leaders in Democracy?
Well first off, the very question asks us to define aboriginal peoples using the white man's definitions and categories.
Right off the bat I have some possible issues with that.
But to answer the question: yes, no and maybe so.
Neolithic culture is roughly defined as stone aged.
Tools were made of stone, bone and wood.
The Copper or Bronze ages had not made their appearance in America prior to the white men from Europe turning up.
European stone age peoples (neolithic cultures) were influenced by Mediterranean and North African cultures which introduced agriculture and metallurgy. Thus they moved out of the stone age.
Not that I have an education in archeology, but I thought that the stone age was Paleolithic? In some cases considered the Upper Paleolithic era.
It does not appear that this happened with the indigenous peoples of America prior to the appearance of the white men.
No written languages.
No wheel.
No horses.
Limited organizational skills.
Limited agriculture.
No metallurgy (and thus they remained stone age).
But we are learning that these assumptions were and are wrong.
In order for civilizations to advance it is thought they need spare time.
This allows the people time to think and communally "brainstorm" ideas and thus invent things and develop as societies.
American native peoples had in fact already developed all the necessary ideas and skills to move out of the stone age and by definition some tribes and groups probably were on the cusp of rapidly advancing out of neolithic times.
We now know agricultural societies were common in some areas.
Pottery was also common in some places which indicates a stable community.
Irrigation systems had been invented.
Metallurgy is debatable but new finds in Ontario and the NE United States indicate copper working and possible smelting for bronze.
Mayan societies had a written language and extensive organizational and governance skills.
The Caddo peoples of the NE in North America had large villages (cities?) combined with huge agricultural operations.
The carvings of the peoples of the Pacific Northwest convey ideas and beliefs and thus probably should be considered a proto written language.
Art had been invented.
Trade was extensive and so the concepts of banking ,loans and interest may have been invented and understood.
And so on and so forth.
Thus the classification "Stone Age" starts to get a bit iffy.
The native peoples of America were a few thousand years behind the Europeans in technological development that is a fact.
But who said it was a race?
And who defines the rules of the race?
Are we racing towards ever increasing pollution?
Environmental damages?
Overcrowding?
Ever more organized crime?
As to original Native American styles and types of goverenance I cant really speak to that issue.
Us white folks never really gave it a try so it's impossible to know if it would be an improvment or not.
For the white guys that is.
Trex
Awesome post Trex, thanx.
