Skip to main content

What are two differences between the native peoples of North and South America?

I can think of two major differences between the cultures of North and South American indigenous populations. First, North American indigenous populations were far more mobile than those in South America. As far as we are able to discern from archaeology and historical studies, First Nations peoples of North America practiced a hunter-gatherer subsistence lifestyle. They might spend one season in one region, hunting deer or catching fish, and travel during another season for the purpose of gathering wild foods like berries. Some First Nations tribes did practice small-scale subsistence agriculture, but nothing like that of South American tribes. In South America, life was far more centralized to city-kingdoms. In fact, several prosperous and highly stratified societies developed in South America. For example, the Inca empire had a range of very wealthy elites to (relatively) poor laborers. Wealth became concentrated in the capital city of Cuzco, as people were required to send goods to this administrative center as tax payments. Not only were luxury goods from the reaches of the empire sent to the capital; food produced in the agricultural parts of the empire was redistributed through the capital as a sort of security system in case of crop failure. This was a far more stratified and administrated society as compared to the relatively egalitarian, nomadic lifestyle of North American peoples.


Another major difference, which manifested itself in societal structure, were beliefs about the relationship between the sacred and the profane. Most North American indigenous cultures held that there was no difference between the world we live in and the spiritual realm. The god(s) were in all things, all people, and all places, and it is our duty as humans to co-exist with all of nature as a part of the same spiritual entity. By this same belief, god(s) or the sacred did not really become concentrated in or limited to just one individual. Anyone could "channel" god(s), and it was not off-limits to anyone in particular. However, in most South American indigenous cultures, things were quite different. The leaders of the great empires and city-kingdoms I mentioned before were often considered god-kings. This means they might have been considered an earthly manifestation of god(s,) or they were believed to be the best and most direct advocate for the people in dealing with god(s). Sometimes rulers were believed to have been descended from god(s) themselves. It is in part because of this belief that so much wealth was concentrated centrally in South American indigenous cultures-- sending as much wealth as possible to the person who negotiates with god(s) is sure to get you on their good side! 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more