Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by frazzle
I finally got around to reading Russell Means blog post, and enjoyed it...I do think it unfortunate to ascribe "archy" to what the (north american,
anyway) indigenous people''s system of social organization really was; the immediate assumption is the flip side of "patriarchy" which he
dismisses immediately in the essay. It was certainly "matrilineal" and by his definition, matriarchal, (his definition is preferred as he says
himself, he knows his people's history) but modern women have little in common with native women, except the basic biology. I would feel no safer (or
freer) under a Ms. Clinton, for example, than I do under Obama or Bush.
Thanks for the contribution. If only the genocide hadn't had the help of massive plagues, we'd be living in something approximating the system I'm
advocating now...it is a great model...just not sure the term "matriarchy" is helpful or useful in this age.
I agree very much with your criticism of Russell's comparison, however I think he worded it that way because he knows how Americans think: in
opposites. Its either this way or that way and there is no other way. Liberals/conservatives, republicans/democrats, right/left, right/wrong .. so he
used direct opposites to make the point.
But besides being matrilineal, it is also true that most native cultures had powerful women's councils and nothing much happened that didn't pass
muster with the clan mothers. Women held a potent role in governing in every tribe I'm familiar with, which blended the element of female nurture
with the warrior nature and I think that's what Russell was referring to as matriarchy. Balance of power, not rule by one or the other.
IMO, the reason they lived in something approximating your view of a healthy lifestyle is because it was a culture that gave back as much as it took
and they lived in small groups generally made up of extended family. Cultural cohesion is pretty much a cuss word these days, and I guess it makes me
as uncomfortable as anyone else, but it seems to be more stable.
I spat coffee at the idea of being led, or even dragged ANYwhere by Ms. Clinton. A guy once told me that in order to heal the world, women would need
to be healed first because they're the lifegivers. But Hillary is proof personified that some are beyond healing.
Checking out the site you linked ... thanks.