Re: `capitalist' character values

From: Tiberius Gracchus (
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 19:42:26 MDT

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:32:02 -0400, you wrote:

>> "Smigrodzki, Rafal" wrote:
>> MIke Lorrey wrote:
>> back to the Heidelberg/Neanderthal period. Tribal cultures are
>> actually
>> far more socially and economically egalitarian than most any other
>> social system
>> ### Can you name examples? How about the enormous power of village
>> chiefs (which translates into most of the offspring being produced by
>> them, not differences in material wealth) in some Amazon Indian
>> tribes?
>Take eskimos, which up into the 20th lived the same existence as in eons
>past, and which rarely gathered in concentrations greater than an
>extended family or clan (primarily to harvest the salmon runs), and
>never had the need for 'chieftans'.
>In the case of your amazon chiefs, if they did in fact father most of
>the offspring, then the 'tribe' is little more than a polygamous family.
>How much 'enormous power' do they exert? Did they do so before they
>acquired metal technology?
>Cheiftans typically gain power where population pressure due to
>technology exceeds local ecological capabilities and conflict for
>resources results.
>Also look at the early Icelandic culture, which had no chieftans, yet
>lived a herder / fisherman lifestyle without nomadism and retained a
>hyperdemocratic proto-libertarian form of government.

Ever see Nanook of the North...eskimo existentialism to the max...

But I digress...

I think you are romanticizing, or at least picking up on the
romanticization of those who came before. I am a longtime student of
things anthropological, and from all I have seen, the closer the
culture/people are to nature, the more brutal and savage they are.

You want a taste of eskimo culture from one who was there?
Try this short story:

Disclaimer/qualifier/half-ass creds: I am part Native American.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT