• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean that’s not that crazy of a claim, just mostly incoorect. The Six Nations had the matriarchs that made all the rules for peacetime and decided when they went to war, and they had the War Chiefs that handled the Braves and led the hunting parties. It’s kinda a bicameral system, at least there were definitely two separate groups that dealt with different aspects of life. Ultimately the matriarchs were in charge though, so that pretty well throws out the idea of a bicameral system.

    • The D Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      so we’re clear, that actually is my claim. it is a form of bicameralism. as i recall the men did have some legislative proposal powers. i’ll need to crack a book again thought

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        The men did, but in my understanding the women had ultimate veto power. If the war chief’s ceremonial beads hit the ground, that’s a death/banishment sentence. They’d give you two chances to stop doing whatever they didn’t approve of, but ultimately if the women said no 3 times, you’re a dead man.

        The only reason that I don’t consider that a bicameral system is that while the men may have been elected, the women were just all the women that lived to a certain age.