Why are the American civilizations seen as tribal?

[Tuuvi]

Everything I've read about the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas seems to say that they were past the tribal stage. They lived in cities, were ruled by monarchs, and had a number of achievements in the arts, architecture, engineering, etc. But when I played EU3, which is supposed to be about history, they are depicted as tribes with absolutely no technology whatsoever. Right now I'm reading The Maya, Eighth Edition by Michael D. Coe and now I'm pretty sure that the EU3 depiction of the Americas is horrendously inaccurate, but I was reading about the Magna Mundi game the other day and they have them depicted as tribes too, although in their game they're supposed to be more capable.

So the popular notion, even among history buffs, seems to be that the Mesoamericans and Incans were tribal and I'm wondering where that comes from. Do people just assume that they were tribes because they were Indians and they used stone tools or am I wrong and I don't understand the difference between a tribe and a state? I don't dare ask the Magna Mundi people because they seem touchy on the subject. I did try to argue that the Mayans should be given a higher level of government and I even included an excerpt from my book about their society and politics but the devs just ignored me.

[Gurkhal]

I've been wondering a bit about that as well but I think that it comes down the game being Eurocentric in its design and I think it may also be a mechanic to ensure that the Indians don't develop to fast and thus resist the European colonization of the Americas.

[Arjos]

Iirc mesoamerican cultures were ruled by many semi-divine dynasties, each with its own central capital...
So they were a tribal state, with alliances and internal struggles coming and going; this doesn't mean they were a backward country...
Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at that time...
Advanced astronomy, hydroponics, writing system, urbanism, mathematics, individuals were able to assert dominance over large areas, structured societies etc...

They lacked iron metallurgy afaik, but their obsidian and bronze weapons were quite fierce: you can't cut down tuberculosis though :S

[Tuuvi]

I've been wondering a bit about that as well but I think that it comes down the game being Eurocentric in its design and I think it may also be a mechanic to ensure that the Indians don't develop to fast and thus resist the European colonization of the Americas.

I've realized that about EU3 but I thought Magna Mundi was supposed to be more historically balanced.

Iirc mesoamerican cultures were ruled by many semi-divine dynasties, each with its own central capital...
So they were a tribal state, with alliances and internal struggles coming and going; this doesn't mean they were a backward country...
Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at that time...
Advanced astronomy, hydroponics, writing system, urbanism, mathematics, individuals were able to assert dominance over large areas, structured societies etc...

They lacked iron metallurgy afaik, but their obsidian and bronze weapons were quite fierce: you can't cut down tuberculosis though :S

I guess this is where I'm getting confused, I don't really know what the word "tribal" means. I always thought it meant a more primitive society, but you seem to be saying it means something different. So this leads me to my next question: What does the word "tribe" mean, in an anthropological context?

[Vladimir]

Tribal systems exist in some modern countries. It's about how the society is organized and not their level of technology.

[Arjos]

What does the word "tribe" mean, in an anthropological context?

It's a society, where its divisions and organization are decided by kinship relationships among its members...

[Tuuvi]

It's a society, where its divisions and organization are decided by kinship relationships among its members...

Ah ok I get it now. That describes the Maya exactly actually.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The Cherokees had their own newspaper and were basically as civilized as the american settlers. IIRC the georgia government just wanted their land and lied about them to Jackson, who either didn't care or was incompetent. That's what you get when you move too far towards popular democracy too quickly.

As for the aztecs my impression is that most people know about them having big cities and a civilization...

[Tuuvi]

The Cherokees had their own newspaper and were basically as civilized as the american settlers. IIRC the georgia government just wanted their land and lied about them to Jackson, who either didn't care or was incompetent. That's what you get when you move too far towards popular democracy too quickly.

As for the aztecs my impression is that most people know about them having big cities and a civilization...

I've read that Jackson had been involved with Indian wars as a soldier and that he hated Indians as a result. The Cherokees sued the government to keep their land, the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court and the Cherokees ended up winning (IIRC). Jackson decided to ignore the Supreme Court and forcibly displaced them anyway.

I don't think most people know just how interesting they were, though. Michael Wood did a series of documentaries on the Conquistadors and went into really great detail on the Incas, Aztecs, and many others. They were definitely a different kind of people from the native americans north of Mexico; a very different kind of "tribal." I wish it was easier to find more good documentaries like those.

And yeah, the Cherokee got one of the worst deals in history.

I'm in the middle of watching that series on Netflix and yea it is really good. I kinda got the impression that the Aztecs and Incas were defeated through treachery more than anything else; had they been more cautious and guarded their rulers better things could've turned out much different.

[Fisherking]

Face it, Jackson was a bigot and his hatred ran much deeper than just the Redstick and Seminole Wars.

The first tribe he moved were the Choctaw who were his staunch allies in both wars.

They had founded their own school system in the 1820 and lived better than the settlers around them.

That in its self was part of the problem. Their land was better and more developed.

Jackson got much of his wealth as a land speculator. Cheating and bullying the Indians off their lands.

His treatment of the 5 civilized tribes was just the biggest land grab of his career.

[Montmorency]

Then again, Jackson adopted and raised two Indian children.

[Tuuvi]

And despite all that for some reason Jackson is immortalized on the $20 dollar bill. What did he do to get his face on there anyway?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Jackson first appeared on the twenty dollar bill in 1928. It is not clear the reason the bill was switched from Grover Cleveland to Andrew Jackson. According to the U.S. Treasury, "Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence."[4]

Huh, go figure...

[Madae]

I'm going to preface this argument by saying this is just my opinion - for the moment, just throw out what you know about "tribalism", Aztecs or Mayans, and the Europeans.

I think the word "tribal" was just a term, and way, to rate another societies advancements to your own, and if they seemed lacking in comparison (such as the Mayans or Aztecs in comparison to European powers when it came to certain technology), they would be considered "tribal". Tribal has its own definition and meaning, but I think there's more to it than that and was just adopted more recently as a way to describe a certain type of social structure - not that they, necessarily, were tribal in any sense of the word, but, more or less, were primitive in comparison to the people judging them. No one will argue that the Mayans or Aztecs didn't make great advancements that were well ahead of the rest of the world, but from a technological standpoint, militarily or otherwise, they were primitive, especially in the eyes of the Europeans;

They practiced human sacrifice on some level, their tools and weaponry were almost entirely limited to stone (obsidian), some practiced slavery on a massive scale, they didn't have ships that could sail across the ocean, and they had a vastly different idea on their origins compared to those in Europe (Polytheism vs. Monotheism). From a technological standpoint, they were well behind the curve. From an enlightenment standpoint, however, they were far beyond.

You would have to imagine what the Mayans or Aztecs would look like to someone who had never seen anything like them before - they were incredibly different, and their way of life would seem out of this world compared to something more personal and experienced. There were similarities in social structure that I'm sure were recognized (kings and queens, peasents, and what have you), but for the most part, they were alien to the Europeans in almost every way possible.

I think another point to bring up is that, while a group of people could be considered part of the "Aztec Empire", they were largely autonomous, and their sense of identity was only strictly enforced around their largest social hub. This is much different than Europe, where practically everyone identified with a particular culture group (French, English, Spanish, for example). Within the bounds of borders, it was almost exclusive; a vast majority of the people in Spain were Spanish and looked to their King or Queen to rule them. This was not so for the Aztecs, which was based almost entirely on tribute from smaller villages, which were then left to their own devices while being considered part of the whole.

[The Lurker Below]

sorry, not trying to oversimplify, but a here's a question response to the original question:

why are the scots referred to as clannish?

[Brandy Blue]

why are the scots referred to as clannish?

I think my post didn't appear so I will try again. I hope it does not result in a double post.

1: The word clan comes from Gaelic and so is associated with Scotland

2: Right up until early modern times clan loyalty was socially and politically very important in Scotland.

3: Even today many Scots feel a sense of pride in their clan. I have seen students in Scotland dressed for graduation wearing kilts with their clan tartan. Most preferred to wear trousers but some chose to proclaim their clan identity in this way.

4: People like to stereotype other people

5: Sometimes there might be an implied message in calling the Scottish clannish. I think the English used to think of the Scots as backward and calling them clannish implied they were socially on a tribal level. Later (19th century, I think) the English no longer thought of Scots as backward primitives but noble and romantic. Suddenly belonging to a Scottish clan was cool. I believe the system of clan tartans originated at that time.

[The Lurker Below]

thank you Brandy Blue. there you go OP, take the post above and in # 2 - 5 replace all instances of scots with amer indians.

[Franconicus]

Two thoughts of mine:

Tribal: I guess you would 16th century Sicily tribal, right?

I think that the Aztecs were very advanced i agriculture. Of course they lacked iron, the wheel and the horses. Getting this from from the Europeans and knowing that there was something interseting on the other side of the ocean would have made them developping quickly, i guess.
I also thing their society was very developed. These slavery thing and sacrificies should not be judged in a 21st century Christian light.

[Madae]

These slavery thing and sacrificies should not be judged in a 21st century Christian light.

I'll call slavery the "lesser of two evils", and considering that most civilizations throughout history practiced it at one point, but human sacrifice? That is an isolated practice and altogether barbaric - it doesn't matter how intelligent they are, and being Christian has nothing to do with it.

[The Lurker Below]

I'll call slavery the "lesser of two evils", and considering that most civilizations throughout history practiced it at one point, but human sacrifice? That is an isolated practice and altogether barbaric - it doesn't matter how intelligent they are, and being Christian has nothing to do with it.

abraham would like to have a word with you
also - what's up with cutting off parts of a babies wienie? sounds "altogether barbaric"
what won't people do in the name of religion.

[Madae]

abraham would like to have a word with you
also - what's up with cutting off parts of a babies wienie? sounds "altogether barbaric"
what won't people do in the name of religion.

Mutilation and murder are two different things, buddy. We could argue about it all day, but since this particular conversation is steering wildly out of control and has zero to do with the topic, I'll just leave it at that.

BTW, I'm not Christian.

[Tuuvi]

I'll call slavery the "lesser of two evils", and considering that most civilizations throughout history practiced it at one point, but human sacrifice? That is an isolated practice and altogether barbaric - it doesn't matter how intelligent they are, and being Christian has nothing to do with it.

I could be wrong but I believe a lot of ancient societies practiced human sacrifice, however the Mexicans took it to a whole new level.

[Madae]

I could be wrong but I believe a lot of ancient societies practiced human sacrifice, however the Mexicans took it to a whole new level.

Most certainly a possibility. However, I'm more or less pointing out that while the rest of the world had moved on, the Aztecs were still doing it when the Spanish arrived. Slavery in Europe (on a equivalent scale) was probably last seen in the Roman era, and human sacrifice well before that.

[AggonyDuck]

Most certainly a possibility. However, I'm more or less pointing out that while the rest of the world had moved on, the Aztecs were still doing it when the Spanish arrived. Slavery in Europe (on a equivalent scale) was probably last seen in the Roman era, and human sacrifice well before that.

The Europeans were by no means averse to forced labour and after the conquest of America did implement slavery on a far wider scale than the Aztecs had ever done. As to human sacrifice, I wouldn't differentiate between sacrifying humans in religious rituals and murder for other motives like conquest and profit. They're both equally morally reprehensible in my view.

[Madae]

The Europeans were by no means averse to forced labour and after the conquest of America did implement slavery on a far wider scale than the Aztecs had ever done. As to human sacrifice, I wouldn't differentiate between sacrifying humans in religious rituals and murder for other motives like conquest and profit. They're both equally morally reprehensible in my view.

Sanctioned slavery was "incompatible with Christianity" (though I won't argue that their weren't "loopholes"). What some people do outside of the ruling opinion is... well... their problem, I guess. I didn't say they didn't, and whether or not they did it more is arguable.

And I'm glad your moral views are so finely tuned. However, you're attempting to turn the argument into something it isn't. This isn't just about what is right or wrong to us, it's also about what is right or wrong to the Europeans at the time. Popular opinion was that slavery was bad, and human sacrifice was worse. Holding them all accountable for something would be similar to me holding you responsible for what some psycho from Finland does. If we could prove that a vast majority of Aztec "vassals", or whathaveyou, were against slavery/sacrifice, I would accept that in their favor.

I would also argue that "murder" and "murder during war" are two completely different things. Equally reprehensible if you want to think of it that way, but still different.

[Kagemusha]

How would you then approach for example witch hunts, killing of heretics and religious persecution of other religions in Europe like Jews for example? Could such have anything in common with human sacrifice, as the people being killed died because of their religious beliefs? How does church sanctioned murder differ from human sacrifice?

[Madae]

How would you then approach for example witch hunts, killing of heretics and religious persecution of other religions in Europe like Jews for example? Could such have anything in common with human sacrifice, as the people being killed died because of their religious beliefs? How does church sanctioned murder differ from human sacrifice?

Heh, this conversation is taking a dangerous turn. I'll try my best to explain what I think without sounding like an ass... which is kind of hard considering the territory we're walking in to.

Innocent or not (probably innocent), being a witch or heretic, to me, would be considered a crime no different than one that someone committed today that carried the death penalty (and what about treason? That was considered a crime punishable by death for many, as well - it's just a difference in belief). Persecution, however, is more tricky. You would have to base it on what is known now as opposed to what was known then (in terms of creation "myths"). Still, it's hard to argue in defense of it, because it's definitely not a good thing no matter how you look at it (especially WW2). For 400-500 years and beyond, you would just have to put yourself in their shoes, when the Church was the absolute authority and what you believed in was the law. No one will argue that what the Church did back then was correct, but you also have to pity them for not knowing the greater truths... That still doesn't make them right, though.

On human sacrifice; on the one hand you have the Aztecs that sacrificed (probably unwilling, and probably slaves) innocents to appease a deity, and on the other, you have people being put to death because so-and-so said their deity said that was against the law and was one of the most terrible crimes. It kind of just goes back to the above argument and not knowing what is morally right in a world that is controlled exclusively by someone (God) that will never tell you himself/herself what is right or wrong. This may still seem like a grey area, but I personally don't consider them the same.

[Franconicus]

I agree, conversation is going a dangerous direction. Comparing the sacrifices of the Aztecs with the killing of heretics and witches ... seems to belong definetly into the backroom.

Madae, don't get me wrong, the Aztecs were a bloodthirsty and brutal, expansionistic and nastionalistic people (would not call it tribe!). However, they did it with an amazing degree of organisation and religious legitimation, which I guess, are typical for a well organized and developed culture. I the light of humanism fo course, it is bloody primitive.

[HopAlongBunny]

It seems to be a term that fits whatever definition people chose to give it; making one suspicious when no definition is given.

I remember talking to a guy at work who came to Canada from Somalia. He had no problem describing the social system there as "tribal". We were talking about loyalty and trust relationships; he felt Canadian bonds went: family, friends, then whatever...work, church, football team etc. In Somalia, he said tribe trumps everything; familial connections were unimportant, you may or may not even know who your "birth parents" were. The tribe raised you, fed and clothed you, saw to your education, and in his case aided his immigration to Canada.

The example just raises the question again of how you define that social structure and its relationships. What specifically makes it "tribal"?

[Arjos]

What specifically makes it "tribal"?

Common close ancestry, dictating social and political order...

But in the 1800s, the word was used also as a derogative term, to describe what was perceived as an inferior society...