Political Power example essay topic

Native people who occupied what is now "North America" had different political practices and it was the so called primitive government. The thought that they had a non political organization made the Europeans misunderstand the social structure of the natives. They thought that there is a lack of leadership and inhabitants were at a state of anarchy and underdevelopment. This misapprehension was a result of the political authority measurements Europeans considered; natives did not have any while westerners had too much. When first arrived to south Central America, newcomers were staggered with the society they came upon; this society is so different than the western legitimization of authority. The thinking of no law, no religion, and no king did not make any sense to westerners and that gave them an image of an infant stage of humanity that did not progress as a human binge should.

In Europe, the social hierarchy had a Monarch who have a supremacy over people's lives and can make a decision on behalf of the whole community in matters that concern them all. With that they accepted the definition of power in terms of violence and subordination. The state held the restricted rights and privileges to violence and justice and it can use these rights in any way it sees fit. Westerns in new America did not see that in the "primitive" society. They failed to see that it was a society functioning on its own but in a way alien to their ways even the early liberals in North America had these thoughts.

In such societies power did exist but as a part of a hierarchy and domination. Even the early liberals in North America had these thoughts. It is unattainable to divide societies among the lines of the existence of political power and the lack of it and this is a mistake that Europeans did fall in to when arrived to the new land. Political power is innate to social power in any given society which makes it questionable to think that the original occupants of the land did not have any. Like any other society the primitive society will face a conflict between "norms" and "reality" and they will try to "reconcile" the old norm with the new reality with their own political interpretations of symbols and actions.

Although Seventeenth century America had a somewhat liberal democratic agenda, it botched to acknowledge the democratic measures of native tribes. In contrast to the Europeans who at that time where still under the rule of the monarch, elections in tribes used to take place constantly by the people of the clan whenever their leader (chief) was no longer able to represent their needs. This action made it obvious that the Chief had no power over his people and that stunned the westerners because they will name some one in a position of power and at the same time will prevent that person to use any authority which made this authority invalid. So, this Chief was not the head of the tribe but the face of it. Their legitimacy was apparent in the peaceful law obeying community without the need for policing; and that was rooted in the very defiance of politics.

The tribes function in stateless states, with powerless political power and leaders who are firsts among equals. The Chief of a given society will have the wisdom and the prestige to mediate any quarrels with out the use of force, and he will give his possessions to his tribe members when they are in need, also he will speak to his people in all occasions reminding them of their heritage and the past and because of that he will have no physical power in his hands, no wealth that will make him better than his people and finally nothing in his head as he will only know what ever was passed to him by his ancestors. A primitive society had a premonition that political power conceded a fatal threat to the groups' existence and that is why they had to nullify the leaders' power and came to accomplish a non authoritarian authority, where power is circulated and not left in one hand that can abuse it. A leader in this society will emanate from the group and will return to the group. I think that although native tribes were considered different back in the 17th century, yet after all that today's politics, if we took Canada as an example, we cannot see much of a difference. Leaders are picked by the people, they speak what they want the people to hear, they are considered prestigious, and when any leader tries to abuse his power there will be no room for him in the political arena and will be impeached by the people.

We killed them back then because they were different, and now we adapt their difference.