#Part 1
While I generally agree with /u/retarredroof that being more specific will yield a better chance to analyze a situation, I think we can paint a broad, yet somewhat accurate, picture by looking at several different instances. To start this picture, we can look back on several past answers I've written for previous questions.
This answer explains that for Indigenous Peoples, we most certainly had our own understandings of philosophy and what it meant to lead a good life. This will ultimately differ from Tribe to Tribe, but it provides a foundation for understanding that while Tribes certainly do not reinforce the "Noble Savage" myth,^1 which is essentially what your question is getting at, there was intellectual thought and reasoning behind model conduct that individuals of Tribes were to maintain for their collective identity.
In a similar matter, I discuss here how politics was also a very ingrained concept for many Indigenous Peoples. This is to say that life was not really "simple" in the sense that people just ate, hunted, and slept. Nations were maintained and doing so often required high levels of organization and structure in order to logistically provide for these needs and protect their land holdings.
This answer probably has the most applicability to your question. It describes that for many Tribes, particularly my own, society overall was more egalitarian, which I think many exaggerate for being "idyllic," though I also wouldn't say that isn't too far from the truth.
There are two major areas we can look at to further inform our conclusion on this matter, to access if Tribes were "idyllic," or at least if they happened to be different enough that we can see varying degrees of overall prosperity. These are culture and practicality. For the first, the last link addresses this:
What often determined how egalitarian a society was is the societal structure and resources. Many Native American communities were hunter-gatherer societies. Some were farmers. Some had a combination. However, most were communal. This caused them to have a more egalitarian society than what we see today because the "wealth," so to speak, was distributed more evenly because life was organized around kinship ties and reciprocity for the well being of the whole community. This lifestyle was rooted in both cultural value as well as economic value.
In terms of cultural value, sharing, gift-giving, and trading were all highly valued because what was given was expected to be repaid in some way later in the future (hence the "reciprocity"). This was because resources were often limited and the gaining of resources required community effort, more than what one person could provide.
This leads into what we could consider the economic value. Because many hunter-gatherers were nomadic or semi-nomadic, they were not able to keep vast reserves of food on hand. They needed to carry what they needed. This means that they could not sustain a population beyond a certain size. Thus, many native societies were balanced in number of births and deaths. And when there isn't a surplus of food, you are more dependent on others of your community who have also gathered enough food. This indicates that not one person was in charge of all the food. It was all shared and "owned" by the community. Unlike in agricultural and industrial societies, structures where mass production of resources can be carried out by a few, hunter-gatherers had to share everything in order for everyone to survive. This meant that resources, particularly food and shelter, were distributed equally. Individual wealth and prestige might differ, but not so much as to offset the balance of the society.
Beyond this, let's examine some key areas to better inform this position.
##Government
One of the most well known examples of Indigenous Government that existed prior to the United States and even colonization by European powers is that of the the Haudenosaunee, or the Iroquois Confederacy. The origin stories of their own nations give a glimpse into the social environment it was born out of and also exemplify Indigenous values that standards of the Old Ways were based off, though they were not always followed.
The Haudenosaunee ... are an ancient people of North America. Our tradition states that our people originated in the northwestern woodlands of North America ... Our existence in these lands has not been one of absolute peace and tranquility. We have had to work hard to develop the civilization we enjoy. There was a time when or lands were torn by conflict and death. There were times when certain individuals attempted to establish themselves as rulers of the people through exploitation and repression.
We emerged from those times to establish a strong democratic and spiritual Way of Life. The confederate state of the Haudenosaunee became the embodiment of democratic principles that continue to guide our peoples today. The Haudenosaunee became the first "United Nations," established on a firm foundation of peace, harmony and respect.
Within the Haudenosaunee, all member nations are equal, regardless of size. Within their national territories the member nations are autonomous, but all adhere to the central principles of democracy that we agreed to at the formation of the Confederacy (Akwesasne Notes, 2005, p. 26). . .
All of this political activity is set in the roots of an ancient tradition of the spirituality of our peoples. This cosmology places the Haudenosaunee in a balanced, familiar relationship with the universe and the Earth ... This philosophy taught us to treat the Natural World with great care. Our institutions, practices, and technologies were developed with a careful eye to their potential for disturbing the delicate balance in which we live (p. 27).
The Haudenosaunee explain here that for them, before the formation of their government, they experienced many of the same problems we encountered after colonization and into our modern day. Wars, fighting, killings, and injustice did exist in various forms. These were carried out at times by Natives against Natives. However... The occurrence of these actions are regularly filtered through a Western lens. As the Haudenosaunee describe, they, as a people, were not governed by carnal instincts that put them at odds with others and with the Natural World. Rather, they sought to cooperate with their environment, recognizing their role in it and the balance they should maintain.
When forming their government, they based it off what would become known as The Great Law of Peace. This law, which is their constitution, provided the model conduct for their citizens to emulate. This law was provided by a man called the Peacemaker.
The first principle that the Peacemaker set forth was indisputable to those who heard his words. He said that it has come to pass that in this land humans beings are seen to abuse on another ... From that initial explanation--that the Giver of Life (later addressed as the Great Creator) did not intend that human beings abuse one another--he proposed that human societies must form governments that will serve to prevent the abuse of human beings by other human beings and that will ensure peace among nations and peoples (p. 32). . .
Peace was to be defined not as the simple absence of war or strife, but as the active striving of humans for the purpose of establishing universal justice. Peace was defined as the product of a society that strives to establish concepts that correlate to the English words power, reason, and righteousness (p. 33).
Here, we see a good blend of practicality and Culture. In order to sustain the very principles of their society, they needed to conduct themselves in accordance with this law. It is important to note that this law was not written down. It is an Oral Tradition that is enforced by internalization of the law, which fosters a strong constitution in individuals of their nation. This observance is what was noticed by the colonial powers and their misunderstandings led them to conclude that their primitiveness is what resulted in their supposed nobility rather than a complex spiritual and philosophical lifestyle in which their society was dependent upon. This, of course, was encouraged due to their collective nature. They worked more on a collectivist mentality rather than an individualistic one, the latter being more common in the Western World today and which is the lens many non-Indigenous researchers regularly peer through. Their collectivistic nature is then demonstrated in the rights established for citizens of their nation: all leaders are elected democratically, councils have the power to nominate and advise elections, all citizens have full rights, all citizens can travel freely, women had all the rights as men (women even were in charged of selecting leaders), immigrants were provided protection for under their laws, individual nations of the Confederacy maintained their autonomy though separate national boundaries had been abolished. For individual internalizing this law, it can be summed up in this phrase:
A society was socialized to the ideology that, if an injustice occurs, it is their moral duty to defend the oppressed again their oppressors (p. 38).
I do not believe this question can be answered unless you stipulate a time and a group. "Before Western colonizers" in the New World likely encompasses 15,000 years and millions of natives. Subsistence patterns varied widely among these people. There is considerable debate among anthropologists about how much free time hunter-gatherers had. As a starting point check out "The Original Affluent Society" here. If you were to stipulate a tribe and a period of time, we might be able to assist. I suggest you narrow your question and also try in /r/AskAnthropology. As an afterthought, the affluent hunter gatherer notion was argued by Marshall Sahlins. You might look at his work.
As a follow up to maybe get some further answers/discussion: to narrow the focus, I was imagining any major Native American tribes at a point right before European contact - so roughly 15th-17th centuries. I'm looking for things like primary sources detailing the abundance/lack of good animals for hunting, maybe mentions of the land being "unspoiled" (for lack of a better word), etc. I'm wondering what evidence we have for or against the idea that the Native Americans were enjoying a bountiful country (obviously acknowledging that there was significant warfare and other human conflict) before the European colonists took over enmasse.
Hello everyone,
To subscribe to this thread using the RemindMe bot, click here.
If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.
Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or /r/all and see only [removed], but we thank you for your patience. If you want to be reminded to come check back later, or simply find other great content to read while you wait, this thread provides a guide to a number of ways to do so, including the RemindMeBot or our Twitter.
Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8p0s9b/roundtable_21_be_kindremind_the_mod_approved/