Fat Tony is still around?

Zerb probably thinks Strunk & White is a consignment shop north of Bloor...

I love a well done smack down.

Well, I think that both sides in this argument have some 'knowledge problems'.

Ms Zerbisias reference to matriarchal societies is irrelevant; is she implying superiority because of this? This isn't the case.

The fact is that matriarchal societies, which are run in large part by the women, are always small scale in population and the economic work is done primarily by the women. That's why they are 'matriarchal'; tribal societies privilege, politically, the source of their economy. These economies are usually horticultural, which means that they don't use the plough.

The reason for this is variable; the soil may be too thin for plough agriculture, and there may be no animals suitable for domestication. This was the case with the Iroquois. They'll be semi-settled, and plant a variety of crops. There's also 'wet horticulture' or swidden, which is slash-and burn, with the men more in charge of the economy..but the gardens are so vital that it remains matriarchal.

The larger populations are always patriarchal because the 'capital' or economy is carried out by the men. This will be found in the great plains economies which are pastoral nomadic.

There's no comparison with the city economies which were irrigation economies, requiring a large submissive population to irrigate and maintain the fields. These economies were large enough that they required a mnemonic system of record keeping (not equivalent to our writing). In smaller populations, you don't need writing.

You cannot equate societal systems. You have to look at the variables in each. The first variable to consider is the environment - how many people can such an envt, with its soil, water, temperature, support? Then, the societal structure is directly related to the size of the population. That includes whether it's matriarchal or patriarchal.

These are all 'no-growth' societies. They can't exceed the carrying capacity of their envt; they don't have the ability to innovate and dissent. Their focus is on stability and the homogeneity of the group.

The West, with the richest biome on this planet, was able to change its relation to its envt, and innovate. This required a focus on the individual as a free thinker.

There is no linear path of evolution with regard to societies. BUT, we can most certainly evaluate their capacity to support a population, their capacity to grow, their capacity to innovate. Almost all indigeneous cultures don't have this capacity. That doesn't make them 'lesser'; all it means is that they are 'no-growth' societies.

Antonia Zerbisias: "Furthermore, ... many [Native groups] ... were matriarchal societies, a fact that the Christian INVADERS [my emphasis] could not and would not deal with."

Oh, now I get it. The lib-left blithering idiots actually DO think that Christians are the BAD guys. I'm sorry. But when have Native Canadians ever opened soup kitchens, clothing depots, in-from-the-heat/cold programs, food banks for Canadians other than themselves?

'Great response to her subversive drivel, Yaacov Ben Moshe, and thank G*d it’s only the TorStar readers she’s contaminating…

One other thing when it comes to the big, bad, Christian European "invaders," the description Toni so indelicately hits those of us of this extraction over the head with: S/he who has the technology rules.

It's called the way of the world--and it's been this way ever since the beginning of time.

If Indigenous/Native/Indian people had had the technology to build the boat to sail the ocean waves and then had the fire power to subdue the inhabitants of the isle/continent on whose shores they landed, they'd be in a similar position to those who DID build the boats and who set out to explore the world.

You build a boat and you're supposed to stay in your own port?

I don't think so.

Indigenous/Native/Indian explorers set out in their canoes and overwhelmed and enslaved other tribes whose lands they "invaded." And that's OK, but it's not OK for European explorers to claim lands they travelled to???

Well, have you hearb
about the zerb
Well everyone know that the zerb is the worb
Zerb, zerb, zerb
well the zerb is the worb

jlc

Bbbwwwhahahahahahahahaha!!!

Syncro

In the hudsons bay area and points west the majority of euro-whities starved, or were saved from starving by the indian trappers(and in most cases-benevolent) during the winter. Some were found to not know the use of rope&knife to make a snare or venture farther than 100ft of the outpost to feed themselves.
One of the twistier stories during that time was a trapper near starvation and fed by indians thru the winter and the following year the trapper shot the indian for stealing a fur.

Reg

Are you saying a starving Zerb is capable of cannibalism?

Syncro

syncro: not sure about that, unless zerbian peninsula promotes it.or maybe they trap crotes there.

Reg

True nuff. Crotes can be tricky to trap.

Syncro

I read the exchange. Antonia comes out unequivocally in favour of Wente's freedom of speech; she agrees that accusations of racism should be reined in; and she raises relevant claims and reasonable questions for Yaacov.

Yaacov is evasive, pointlessly aggressive, and sloppy in expression. It is particularly odd that his blog post, where he retreated to reframe the dialogue, casts aspersions on Antonia's prose by alleging its failure on "Elements of Style criteria", when his own posts in the exchange are riddled with spelling errors and empty prolixity -- anathema to Strunk and White.

Would someone on Zerbisias' side please answer this question:

Indigenous/Native/Indian explorers set out in their canoes and overwhelmed and enslaved other tribes whose lands they "invaded." And that's OK, but it's not OK for European explorers to claim lands they travelled to???

How idiotically blithe of you Kate.

I would have thought it was Antonia Zerbisias who was being blithely idiotic.

I wonder what zerb would say about Indian tribes stealing squaws from other Indian tribes.