Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023
Nonsense.
Not only did they not have the common language, breadth of economic linkages, etc or civil society that this requires, but they didn’t have the concept. Nationhood is an invented societal construct, which became popular in the 18th and probably dates no earlier than the 16th century. The people of Elizabethan England considered themselves a nation; the citizens of Charlemagne’s empire, Rome or Athens did not.
To call the early peoples of North America “nations” is to further impose European norms and structure on a non-European culture and society. I understand that modern tribal leaders in Canada might have embraced it, but that only shows that they don’t understand the term or know history.
|
We're off-topic.
But you're wrong.
See definition:
Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as:
A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.[1]
Further, note the timeline dating back to 1142, pre-Columbus, for the existence of the '5-Nations' group of Aboriginals (later 6, after 1722).
Read the details of their societal organization and how it fits the definition quite neatly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
Now that we're all clear on that...........
Can we pretty please get back on topic?
Thanks all!