You are correct, actually. Not sure why you are downvoted. Several traditional tribal government structures of indigenous peoples were much more democratic in form.
However, besides the Iroquois Confederacy, it’s hard to consider them as being sufficiently organised to be considered a state in the traditional sense. This isn’t meant to exclude all indigenous governments; the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca civilisations were all examples of (non-democratic) highly organised states, especially in comparison to the North American tribes around and after European contact.
It is not, but I think that discussion about democracy in cultures that don’t organise themselves into states is very informative because those societies basically have to be democratic. A state apparatus that can enforce its will is what allows a state to be non-democratic in the first place. If there is no state, people who don’t like it can just leave.
I kind of get your point. However, the state, as we knou it today is a relatively new invention. And the original idea of the post was that the US was founded on “enlightenment ideas”, like democracy and such. This framing is very cynical, since the european upper class probably got those concepts from the native Americans which the US displaced/genocided.
Also: I’m an anarchist, so I’ll guess you’ll forgive that I’m not too fond of states. ;)
“enlightenment ideas”, like democracy and such. This framing is very cynical, since the european upper class probably got those concepts from the native Americans which the US displaced/genocided.
The point is about the concepts of the European Enlightenment being derived from Native Americans (which is absurd), not that the Founding Fathers specifically understood and owe some debt to Native American forms of governance (which is controversial but mainstream and backed by evidence).
Are you suggesting that the native american tribes couldn’t have had democratic societies?
No, I’m suggesting that the idea that the European Enlightenment era ideals of democracy were stolen from Native Americans because Europeans were too dumb to look at their own contemporary democratic societies and European history is fucking absurd.
This framing is very cynical, since the european upper class probably got those concepts from the native Americans which the US displaced/genocided.
I disagree vehemently with the assertion that the state is a modern invention. Humans have organised themselves into states for the vast majority of human history. The earliest examples of writing were state records. In fact, to my knowledge, there are no ancient civilisations who (1) have developed writing and (2) did not organise themselves into states. Ancient Egypt, Sumner and Mesopotamia, Ancient China—all of the earliest known civilisations in recorded history—had states, the basic function of which has remained unchanged throughout history. They had rulers or bodies that created laws, collected taxes, raised armies to maintain their power and fight other states, and enforced their laws on their subjects.
While the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy was certainly known to the writers of the US Constitution, we know for a fact what their inspirations were, without needing to speculate, because they produced a large body of essays defending and explaining their reasoning. These are the Federalist Papers. You may have heard of them. We know that the writers draw inspiration from primarily European sources, such as the English Bill of Rights, the operation of the Roman Republic and of Athenian democracy, and of documents like the Magna Carta.
I’m sorry, but you are mixing state with form of government. The state was born as a concept with westafalia accord, not before that. And that is very very new
No, that’s not true. The concept of Westphalian sovereignty was laid down and (somewhat) universally applied after the Peace of Westphalia. But there were plenty of states before that. The doctrine of Westphalian sovereignty amounts to nothing more than a statement that “each state should mind its own business”.
By your definition, most of medieval Europe and imperial China were not states. The Roman Empire and the Roman Republic were not states, nor the Greek city-states, nor the Sumerian ones, nor Ancient Egypt, and many more. Even a cursory look at human history is incompatible with the notion that the concept of a state materialised after the Peace of Westphalia.
They were forms of government that had important difference with what a state is. The monopoly in the use of force, for giving just one. To have a government force is not the same as to have a state that have monopoly of force in a land, that includes one.or.more nation and that is independent of the people that are part of the government class (as in group of people, not as in Marx/Weber concepts), that is why they are treated different and political science start studying state as it is from a westfalian order perspective and not from before that. Whit this I’m not saying there wasn’t state like orders, but it wasn’t state, in the same.way as atenean democracy was not a democracy as we understand it (for the Greeks, democracy was a perversion , actually)
Not that liberal, compared to what the people they colonized were doing, before the europeans arrived.
You are correct, actually. Not sure why you are downvoted. Several traditional tribal government structures of indigenous peoples were much more democratic in form.
However, besides the Iroquois Confederacy, it’s hard to consider them as being sufficiently organised to be considered a state in the traditional sense. This isn’t meant to exclude all indigenous governments; the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca civilisations were all examples of (non-democratic) highly organised states, especially in comparison to the North American tribes around and after European contact.
I don’t think that being/having a state is necessary for a democratich governance. I don’t know why you added that conditional.
It is not, but I think that discussion about democracy in cultures that don’t organise themselves into states is very informative because those societies basically have to be democratic. A state apparatus that can enforce its will is what allows a state to be non-democratic in the first place. If there is no state, people who don’t like it can just leave.
I kind of get your point. However, the state, as we knou it today is a relatively new invention. And the original idea of the post was that the US was founded on “enlightenment ideas”, like democracy and such. This framing is very cynical, since the european upper class probably got those concepts from the native Americans which the US displaced/genocided.
Also: I’m an anarchist, so I’ll guess you’ll forgive that I’m not too fond of states. ;)
What an absolutely bizarre idea.
It’s not that outlandish if a bit hyperbolic.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf
The point is about the concepts of the European Enlightenment being derived from Native Americans (which is absurd), not that the Founding Fathers specifically understood and owe some debt to Native American forms of governance (which is controversial but mainstream and backed by evidence).
Are you suggesting that the native american tribes couldn’t have had democratic societies? Why no[t?
I guess, you have some reading to do](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)
I also suggest David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s “The dawn of everything”, if you’re interested in the likely roots of US democracy.
No, I’m suggesting that the idea that the European Enlightenment era ideals of democracy were stolen from Native Americans because Europeans were too dumb to look at their own contemporary democratic societies and European history is fucking absurd.
Which contemporary democratic european societies do you mean, exactly? Which ones existed before the enlightenment?
Seriously, read the first few chapters of the dawn of everything. It’s worth it.
I disagree vehemently with the assertion that the state is a modern invention. Humans have organised themselves into states for the vast majority of human history. The earliest examples of writing were state records. In fact, to my knowledge, there are no ancient civilisations who (1) have developed writing and (2) did not organise themselves into states. Ancient Egypt, Sumner and Mesopotamia, Ancient China—all of the earliest known civilisations in recorded history—had states, the basic function of which has remained unchanged throughout history. They had rulers or bodies that created laws, collected taxes, raised armies to maintain their power and fight other states, and enforced their laws on their subjects.
While the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy was certainly known to the writers of the US Constitution, we know for a fact what their inspirations were, without needing to speculate, because they produced a large body of essays defending and explaining their reasoning. These are the Federalist Papers. You may have heard of them. We know that the writers draw inspiration from primarily European sources, such as the English Bill of Rights, the operation of the Roman Republic and of Athenian democracy, and of documents like the Magna Carta.
I’m sorry, but you are mixing state with form of government. The state was born as a concept with westafalia accord, not before that. And that is very very new
No, that’s not true. The concept of Westphalian sovereignty was laid down and (somewhat) universally applied after the Peace of Westphalia. But there were plenty of states before that. The doctrine of Westphalian sovereignty amounts to nothing more than a statement that “each state should mind its own business”.
By your definition, most of medieval Europe and imperial China were not states. The Roman Empire and the Roman Republic were not states, nor the Greek city-states, nor the Sumerian ones, nor Ancient Egypt, and many more. Even a cursory look at human history is incompatible with the notion that the concept of a state materialised after the Peace of Westphalia.
No, they were not.
They were forms of government that had important difference with what a state is. The monopoly in the use of force, for giving just one. To have a government force is not the same as to have a state that have monopoly of force in a land, that includes one.or.more nation and that is independent of the people that are part of the government class (as in group of people, not as in Marx/Weber concepts), that is why they are treated different and political science start studying state as it is from a westfalian order perspective and not from before that. Whit this I’m not saying there wasn’t state like orders, but it wasn’t state, in the same.way as atenean democracy was not a democracy as we understand it (for the Greeks, democracy was a perversion , actually)