Grizzly said:
It's alright to be a bit liberal, Grey, but being moronic is unneccessary. More advanced? Bwahahahahahahahahhaa! Come on man, put the rhetoric away.
I'll take you up on the challenge Griz. Yes, many Indian societies were as advanced or more advanced than Old World societies thnat existed at the same time.
For example, the Mayans developed a mathematical system that was much more complicated than Old World mathematics in many ways.
"Maya mathematics constituted the most sophisticated mathematical system ever developed by that time. The Maya counting system required only three symbols: a dot representing a value of one, a bar representing five, and a shell representing zero. These three symbols were used in various combinations, to keep track of calendar events both past and future, and so that even uneducated people could do the simple arithmetic needed for trade and commerce. That the Maya understood the value of zero is remarkable - most of the world's civilizations had no concept of zero at that time."
In the field of politics, the Iroqouis Six Nations Confederacy was a much more sophisticated political system than any that existed in Europe at the time. The Iroqouis developed a government based on two houses; a lower house based on strict representation by population; and an upper house with equal representation from each Nation.
At the time of the American Revolution the founding fathers acknowedged ther superiority of Iroqouian political thought and organization by seeking the Iroqouis sachems' advice and adopting the Six Nations system as their model for the U.S. constitution.
"Benjamin Franklin's Articles of Confederation [1775] resembled the political structure of the Iroquois and other native nations that bordered the thirteen colonies. Down to the language Franklin used (the confederacy was called "a firm league of friendship"), the new states (Franklin still called them "colonies") retained powers similar to those of the individual tribes and nations within many native confederacies -- local problems were to be solved by the local unit of government best suited to their nature, size and scope, while national problems, such as diplomacy and defense, were to be handled by the national government. This notion of "federalism" was very novel to European eyes at that time. Among native peoples in America, the idea was so old that we have no record of when it first came into use.
The Articles of Confederation also contained a similarity to the Iroquois and other confederations because it had difficulties in levying taxes with any degree of authority. With the aid of historical hindsight, one may argue that the founders, in establishing the first confederatin of states, erred in their judgement of just how much "natural law" a gaggle of thirteen former English colonies could absorb. Like many native confederacies, their first attempt at government had a very weak executive -- not a problem if a legislative body strives for genuine consensus, but potentially paralyzing in a system more attuned to reconciling competing special interests, as the United States' evolved.
The Articles contained another native mechanism intriguing to European eyes: a clause allowing for amendment, just as the Iroquois Great Law of Peace provides that new measures may be "added to the rafters" of the symbolic national longhouse. Like the Iroquois Great Law, Franklin's Articles provided means by which new people and territory could be brought into the confederacy."
Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of American Democracy
By
Donald A. Grinde, Jr.
University of California at Riverside
and
Bruce E. Johansen
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Another time we can get into a discussion about the superiority of native American religious philosophy. In the meantime, I will leave with you one thought. I have studied native American spirituality for quite a while, and never have I encountered a native relgious belief as repellant, crude and fascistic as the following principle, which forms the basis of Western political thought.
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."
Romans 13:1-7
This principle is in direct contrast to most Indian societies, where challenges to authority were permitted, and critical thought was encouraged.
