I think this must be the exception, in tribes
where the idea of surplus/private property
of the means of production such as land
and the separation of
of work did not occur. I don't remember any such
matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca
and other city-dwelling or nomadic ancient americans.
Westerners yearn so much for an idyll of back to
nature, that they tend to re-create some of the
"ancient" customs that were disrupted by their
very arrival...
Eva
> Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with
> the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property
> and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the
> door? Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose and still
> choose the members of the council. Only they can depose a leader and in my
> nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war. In my two divorces the wife got
> all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want. It is not easy
> being in a traditional marital arrangement. That is why we so rarely leave
> them. You seem a bit Eurocentric here. REH
>
> Durant wrote:
>
> > (David Burman:)
> >
> > >
> > > On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original
> > > foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural
> > > surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of
> > > fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This
> > > contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural
> > > surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war.
> > > These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine
> > > power to take it.
> > >
> >
> > I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based.
> >
> > > There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a
> > > gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes
> > > of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated
> > > with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and
> > > ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while
> > > taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent
> > > of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian
> > > invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of
> > > conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an
> > > historical blip of a mere 5,000 years.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while
> > gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities.
> > In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it
> > was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm.
> > Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required
> > heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since.
> > Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part
> > of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human
> > nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be
> > possible to define it.
> >
> > Eva
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
