Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

But I suppose it's nothing like your blanket statement, because it's your statement. That sounds pretty, uh..

magical.

fixation

What fixation? I have one post countering your blanket statement. You claimed there was no notion of property ownership in the Americas, prior to European colonization. This is not true.

there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

A blanket statement is a generalization based on a specific instance. You took the Aztecs (only) as a generalization for saying how the precolombian natives purportedly had a notion of land property, where they (for the most part) had NOT. It's still a bad argument against my statement.

Land property is not a fact of "human nature", but the byproduct of specific hierarchic and sedentary systems. The Aztecs were a special type of social organization in mesoamerica for how they evolved into an empire ruled by a priest class, not unlike the ancient Egyptians. They stand out in comparison with most other native societies of mesoamerica.

The natives of what is now US and Canada got a whole history of being pushed back, to inhospitable regions by Euro settlers that just kept taking lands for themselves. That is basically the reason why the Inuk people have been living far up north in the polar circle, even tho they used to be living in more temperate regions.

−1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all.

Aztecs were a special type of social organization in mesoamerica for how they evolved into an empire ruled by a priest class, not unlike the ancient Egyptians. They stand out in comparison with most other native societies of mesoamerica.

if any at all.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

The crux of the matter here is that socio-political organization ain't some sort of ethnic or genetic thing, just like the land property issue. It's some arrangements that people have supported, and are historically redundant.

US southwest native cultures were very much alike early neolithic societies of Mesopotamia and Africa, while it ranged from nomadic tribes -some that were monarchies- and sedentary "republic" like the Haudenosaunee. You had neutral regions where neither group asserted predominance, while some other regions were somewhat more territorialized. Yet even in the latter case, there was no trace of any sort of contractual property on land, or even national borders.

So the population of the precolombian American continent was pretty diverse culturally and politically, and were at different levels of "development". Aztecs had just taken a more imperial tangent, that is directly related to appropriation. How can you have an empire without it?

Fite me on that... But with relevant content, plz.

−1