Sure, but in, for example, North America monarchism was extremely rare and as far as I know they were only significant in the Mississippian Culture, for a certain value of monarchism.
This culture is fascinating precisely because it both collapsed from the strain of the European-brought plagues and because the implicit heirarchy was both rare and yet still incredibly egalitarian compared to any Old World standard. It’s precisely interesting because it seems to represent the very growth of inequality that begins with the creation of a noble class.
I’m not as familiar with Australia’s tribal systems but my understanding is they also didn’t have monarchism. That’s two continents free or relatively free of the scourge of monarchy.
The other person just said Australia doesn’t count because they don’t matter, fam, but you’re arguing about feudalism vs monarchism when, just as an fyi, feudalism as a system is disputed as a modern abstraction in the first place.
I’m kind of not. I think i was arguing that geographically disparate differences in well being were less likely to be exploitative in the pre-modern world. Being earnest on the internet is the worst experience and I need to stop.
I could swear that was a reply to some dumb bullshit. Sorry this is like five layers if pedantry deep with zero whimsy or fun. Every second I spend looking at this I lose respect for everyone involved.
Sure, but in, for example, North America monarchism was extremely rare and as far as I know they were only significant in the Mississippian Culture, for a certain value of monarchism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
This culture is fascinating precisely because it both collapsed from the strain of the European-brought plagues and because the implicit heirarchy was both rare and yet still incredibly egalitarian compared to any Old World standard. It’s precisely interesting because it seems to represent the very growth of inequality that begins with the creation of a noble class.
I’m not as familiar with Australia’s tribal systems but my understanding is they also didn’t have monarchism. That’s two continents free or relatively free of the scourge of monarchy.
Antarctica too.
Australia had a population between 350k and 1m around 1000 AD. In 1000 AD, the global population was between 350m and 425 M.
Claiming “it’s an entire continent without monarchy” when that continent was empty isn’t a rebuttal.
Without feudalism. Not without monarchy. You can have non-feudal monarchism.
Kinda of feel like “those people don’t count because I’m a racist and don’t want them to count” was the bigger issue there
I can’t find the original comment, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the one who brought up monarchy. I can’t actually tell what you’re arguing about.
The other person just said Australia doesn’t count because they don’t matter, fam, but you’re arguing about feudalism vs monarchism when, just as an fyi, feudalism as a system is disputed as a modern abstraction in the first place.
I’m kind of not. I think i was arguing that geographically disparate differences in well being were less likely to be exploitative in the pre-modern world. Being earnest on the internet is the worst experience and I need to stop.
https://anarchist.nexus/comment/476279
I could swear that was a reply to some dumb bullshit. Sorry this is like five layers if pedantry deep with zero whimsy or fun. Every second I spend looking at this I lose respect for everyone involved.