Ray is right about the relationship of matrilinearity and male dominance.
Women always know who their children are - men can never be sure. In fact,
recent research shows that women secret a selective spermicide in the
uterus that favours conception by the *non*-regular partner - presumably to
enhance genetic diversity and therefore species survivability. The
patrilineal preoccupation with controlling female behaviour must stem from
the need to pass on property exclusively to "rightful" heirs, whereas in
matrilineal societies there is no such need.
In matrilineal African cultures, for example, children "belong" to the
mother, not the father, although the mother's brother assumes responsiblity
for protection. In such societies there far fewer rules regarding emale
sexual behaviour and property, and incidentally, fewer stigmatized sexual
practices such as prostitution, since there are fewer reasons for women to
be cast out of the family circle.
I do think there's a relationship between stable agricultural capacity and
matrilinearity and between pastoralism/ nomadism and patrilinearity. I
wonder if Chinese culture which is now so patriarchal was that way before
the Mongol invasions. There is plenty of evidence that ancient Hindu
culture was originally very different. And even Christianity was
egalitarian until Constatine took it up with a vengeance.
I strongly recommend Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade" for the
literature that leads to these conclusions.
At 04:53 PM 27/08/98 -0700, Ray E. Harrell wrote:
>Eva, my apologies for not catching this post which was before my past one
asking for a
>reply. My server only gave this post to me today for some reason.
>
>The Great Civilizations in North America were nearly all matrilineal
including the Long
>House Houdinosaunee who gave Ben Franklin the systems that are the
foundations of the
>U.S. Constitution. (They didn't accept the matrilineal element but did
include a great
>deal of the "Great Law of Peace" in the Constitution). The exception to
this may be
>the Pueblo peoples. I have called a Hopi friend of mine on that and hope
he can tell
>me more about their very complicated formulas, however, I am not
enthusiastic about my
>ability to comprehend.
>
>My own people the Cherokee were until 1828 Matrilineal at which point they
realized
>that they would not survive without at least trying assimilation. So they
met, drafted
>a written constitution and formed a mirror government to the U.S.
Government including
>changing women's equality and property rights. (Needless to say this made
the women go
>into a 150 year depression, only remedied with a return to traditional
values and
>spiritual practices.) It didn't make any difference the "crackers" still
stole the
>plantations, the cotton and fruit plantations and the herds of
thoroughbred horses,
>sold them for pennies and marched the Cherokee to Oklahoma on a death
march. Orphaning
>my great-grandfather in the process.
>
>The greatest City of North America was at Kahokia and was matrilineal as
were all of
>the Mound Builder cultures. The great cultures of the Southeast and the
Navajo in
>the Southwest were as well. The Great Speaker at Tenochtitlan was
originally
>matrilineal although the reform of Tlacelel calls that into doubt at the
time of
>Cortez.
>
>Some of the more nomadic cultures were not. Unfortunately those cultures
are the ones
>that the movies and anthropologists wrote about. They were the more
romantic of the
>bunch as opposed to people like the first psycho-linguist Sequoia
(Cherokee) or Ely
>Parker. "Donehogawa" (Seneca) who was the gatekeeper of the Iroquois
Confederacy a
>Lieutenant of Grant in the Civil War and the head of the Department of
Indian Affairs.
>He was also a very wealthy engineer. The ways of Washington and the games
with the
>"Indian Wars" out west were so discouraging that he resigned and continued
both his
>business and his traditional ways. So you can take it from me. We were
and are
>matrilineal inspite of and long before Rousseau and John Locke.
>
>As for the Inca. There are many new books being written by the people
themselves and I
>would refer to those before taking the invaders words for much. But
they are not my
>people and I won't speak for them. I would do the same for the Magyars
even though I
>have sung Hary Janos and studied with Otto Herz and Bela Rozsa.
>
>Now that all being said, I re-state the original question:
>> how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with
>> the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the
property
>> and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his
shoes in the
>> door?
>
>Ray Evans Harrell
>
>Eva Durant wrote:
>
>> I think this must be the exception, in tribes
>> where the idea of surplus/private property
>> of the means of production such as land
>> and the separation of
>> of work did not occur. I don't remember any such
>> matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca
>> and other city-dwelling or nomadic ancient americans.
>>
>> Westerners yearn so much for an idyll of back to
>> nature, that they tend to re-create some of the
>> "ancient" customs that were disrupted by their
>> very arrival...
>>
>> Eva
>>
>> > Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as
property with
>> > the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the
property
>> > and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his
shoes in the
>> > door? Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose
and still
>> > choose the members of the council. Only they can depose a leader and
in my
>> > nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war. In my two divorces
the wife got
>> > all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want. It
is not easy
>> > being in a traditional marital arrangement. That is why we so rarely
leave
>> > them. You seem a bit Eurocentric here. REH
>> >
>> > Durant wrote:
>> >
>> > > (David Burman:)
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original
>> > > > foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural
>> > > > surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of
>> > > > fortification that would suggests the need for defence from
others. This
>> > > > contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that
agricultural
>> > > > surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination
and war.
>> > > > These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the
masculine
>> > > > power to take it.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based.
>> > >
>> > > > There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia
precipitated a
>> > > > gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and
dominating modes
>> > > > of social organization. These changes are thought to have been
associated
>> > > > with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass
migrations and
>> > > > ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered,
while
>> > > > taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The
most recent
>> > > > of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was
Mycenian
>> > > > invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of
>> > > > conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is
really an
>> > > > historical blip of a mere 5,000 years.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while
>> > > gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities.
>> > > In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it
>> > > was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm.
>> > > Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required
>> > > heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since.
>> > > Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part
>> > > of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human
>> > > nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be
>> > > possible to define it.
>> > >
>> > > Eva
>> > >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
