From: Robert Comer 

Agent does the same thing, it's auto clipping -- if it knows it's a
secondhand quoteback (multiple ">"'s), it doesn't quote it
back again.

It's nice to have auto clipping, but I wish it would go one more level back.

>What part of "State" functionality do you think was missing from their
>structure.

I can't back that up, just going on memory from my social anthropology
courses and any stuff I had back then is long gone.  I came up blank in
google for that type stuff.  Not organized enough and no permanent
settlements is a lot of that, but the shaman/chief/tribal council really
didn't "manage" things like you would expect a state level
government to.

I never heard the term "First Nations" here, but that sure sounds
like an afterthought in history...

--
Bob Comer



On Fri, 25 May 2007 07:47:10 -0400, "John Beamish"
 wrote:

>On a completely different subject ... when your messages are displayed in
>Opera, the quoted message (i.e. my earlier comment) is greyed and when I
>reply to the message, the only part that appears in the quoteback is the
>comment you added ... my original comment (greyed) doesn't appear.
>Interesting.
>
>What part of "State" functionality do you think was missing from their
>structure.  FWIW, the term used here to refer to them is "First
Nations"
>which is, to me, an acknowledgement of something more than merely tribal.
>
>On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:04:13 -0400, Robert Comer
> wrote:
>
>>> No state structure?  They certainly had a governing group (the head
>>> honcho
>>> was called the Chief -- hey!
>>
>> That's tribal, several rungs down from state.
>>
>> fwiw, some American Indians really did approach state level, but they
>> were probably more related with central american indians.  (my guess,
>> I haven't read that.  I'm thinking of the cliff dwellers of NM for one
>> example.
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5