“...archaeologists now say these “collective societies” left telltale traces in their material culture, such as repetitive architecture, an emphasis on public space over palaces, reliance on local production over exotic trade goods, and a narrowing of wealth gaps between elites and commoners.”
I’m glad we cleared that up. Here I was thinking that the aztecs and incas were just human-sacrifice demon-worshipping pagans; when in fact they lived all the main agenda items of college campus “progressivism”.
I’ve noticed that revisionists try to insert PC nonsense into any analysis of primitive cultures (that left no written records); they’d have you believe they all held women in the highest regard, when Europeans earliest interactions with them clearly indicate that most (if not all) treated women as little more than beasts of burden. Regardless of whether it was in the Americas, Africa, or some Pacific island (where there may have been queens but certainly nothing that improved the lots of the females in general), as long as there is no written record they can just make up whatever they want. I had a sexual deviant describe how the whole idea of homosexuality as a “universal taboo” had been debunked, that early cultures regarded them as a “third gender” - but only early cultures that left no written records, of course...
Oh and look, they were localvores too.
I bet they wore skinny jeans and had stupid neck beards. Yeah, that’s it.