...thinking they can get gibs because of classical culture - not how it works - although that's kinda the problem everywhere in the West, thinking there is some sort of bed of laurels to lounge on because of the achievements of previous generations.
The myth of tribal utopia is from the Marxist school of bullshit
- tribal structure was communist, but it was no utopia... tribes thought nothing of genociding each other over a grudge or convenience.
The communism was self-contained within each tribe, and each tribe member had to serve a useful function or face banishment.
yeah, it was communism inasmuch that it was based around the community with a sharing of resources, but there were social structures ranging from chiefs to slaves (slaves usually sign of agriculture, not nomads).
I'll respectfully disagree - sure they traded, but there was no fundamental right to property ownership - means of production was nevertheless directed by the chief and tribal members couldn't really argue their assigned place.
yes, also depends when we're talking... 10,000 BC is going to be different from 1600 AD
Also, as soon as you're talking about several tribes, there's no guarantee that they were all the same - this is assumed for convenience.
- Specialisation probably reduced conflict e.g. fishermen would not be hunting same buffalo herd as the tribe next door
- so if multiple tribes developed exclusive specialisations, it would minimise risk of genocide and the entire trade network should be seen more akin to how city states worked.
