Eva, my apologies for not catching this post which was before my past one asking for a
reply. My server only gave this post to me today for some reason.
The Great Civilizations in North America were nearly all matrilineal including the Long
House Houdinosaunee who gave Ben Franklin the systems that are the foundations of the
U.S. Constitution. (They didn't accept the matrilineal element but did include a great
deal of the "Great Law of Peace" in the Constitution). The exception to this may be
the Pueblo peoples. I have called a Hopi friend of mine on that and hope he can tell
me more about their very complicated formulas, however, I am not enthusiastic about my
ability to comprehend.
My own people the Cherokee were until 1828 Matrilineal at which point they realized
that they would not survive without at least trying assimilation. So they met, drafted
a written constitution and formed a mirror government to the U.S. Government including
changing women's equality and property rights. (Needless to say this made the women go
into a 150 year depression, only remedied with a return to traditional values and
spiritual practices.) It didn't make any difference the "crackers" still stole the
plantations, the cotton and fruit plantations and the herds of thoroughbred horses,
sold them for pennies and marched the Cherokee to Oklahoma on a death march. Orphaning
my great-grandfather in the process.
The greatest City of North America was at Kahokia and was matrilineal as were all of
the Mound Builder cultures. The great cultures of the Southeast and the Navajo in
the Southwest were as well. The Great Speaker at Tenochtitlan was originally
matrilineal although the reform of Tlacelel calls that into doubt at the time of
Cortez.
Some of the more nomadic cultures were not. Unfortunately those cultures are the ones
that the movies and anthropologists wrote about. They were the more romantic of the
bunch as opposed to people like the first psycho-linguist Sequoia (Cherokee) or Ely
Parker. "Donehogawa" (Seneca) who was the gatekeeper of the Iroquois Confederacy a
Lieutenant of Grant in the Civil War and the head of the Department of Indian Affairs.
He was also a very wealthy engineer. The ways of Washington and the games with the
"Indian Wars" out west were so discouraging that he resigned and continued both his
business and his traditional ways. So you can take it from me. We were and are
matrilineal inspite of and long before Rousseau and John Locke.
As for the Inca. There are many new books being written by the people themselves and I
would refer to those before taking the invaders words for much. But they are not my
people and I won't speak for them. I would do the same for the Magyars even though I
have sung Hary Janos and studied with Otto Herz and Bela Rozsa.
Now that all being said, I re-state the original question:
> 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?
Ray Evans Harrell
Eva Durant wrote:
> 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]
> >
> >
> >
> >
