Someone I talked to recently online who described themselves as First Nations alleged that there was no mistaking that historically, native Americans (both in North and the more southern parts of the continent) were much behind Europe in technological and societal progress.
Here are the points they mentioned:
There's quite a few technological and social metrics that you can measure a society by, and the First Nations of NA were behind Europe, Asia, and Africa by a wide margin.
This is best-noted by looking at similar technologies and methods of governance: with their otherwise inferior technology (no longbows or crossbows; which are around 5,000 years and 2500 years old, respectively), and their complete lack of smelting of metal (another tech that is thousands of years old), coupled with their tribal form of governance (considered older and socially behind nearly every other form of government).
One of the major contributors to this was their lack of horses, among other things.
...(T)he Aztec Empire lasted slightly more than 200 years. In fact, as a direct comparison, the Aztecs were similar to the pre-Christ Egyptians, whose empire lasted for thousands of years, and whose country still exists today, which still puts them thousands of years behind Europe and the East.
(I)n comparison to Europe and the East, they were practically luddites. They still governed with a tribal mentality, still warred and slaughtered other tribes, and were no where near the level of advancement as other civilizations that existed at the time.
(T)he Incans only had other tribals to compete with in terms of peers. The moment the Spanish came, they were done. They were done in a year in-fact, because they lacked the technology and society to deal with them.
(T)hat's a fact of history. By the time the Aztecs came about, Europeans were well on their way to circumnavigating the globe, and by every metric and technology the Aztecs had, the Europeans had the same or better, and for longer.
The Aztecs existed from 1300 to 1521. The reason they stopped existing is because in 1520, they came into conflict with Europeans, and within a year their civilization fell.
Having "a lot of people" does not make a civilization advanced; it makes them numerous - I shouldn't have to explain that to you. India for example, had an estimated population of between 75 and 96 million people in the 1300s, but it should be abundantly clear that they were not the most advanced among the eastern civilizations, and certainly not as advanced as a dozen or so European ones. The Europeans had contact with dozens of other civilizations, bringing home any and every bit of potential advancement, learning it, adopting it, improving upon it, and using it. This is how you become more advanced than your neighbours and other civilizations you come across.
And finally, if your system of government is tribal, you're tribals. The Aztecs may have been an exception, but it's still undeniable that they were primitive in comparison to Europe and the East. As well, it's also a fact that most North American native tribes were tribal, even well into the 1800s.
(I)f you believe that the various natives were so advanced, go ahead and tell me when the various tribes and civilizations of North America left the stone age and advanced to the bronze age or beyond in terms of technology.
I'll wait.
I've highlighted all the important points he raised.
So, I would like responses on these. How accurate were his statements? Are they representative of the historical record? Are they generalisations, or is there some truth to them?
Thanks.
I think you should probably take a look through the askhistorians FAQ on the indigenous Americas - and perhaps send that along to the other person, as well. In fact, I'll get that started by linking a few posts that seem especially relevant.
For a quick response to your question of "How accurate were his statements," the answer is: not very accurate at all. Smelting and metallurgical technology was very much present in Mesoamerica, in addition to South America. The majority of people in North America in 1492 lived in empires, confederations, city-states, or other societies that weren't tribal organizations. Amerindian technologies such as agricultural chinampas (among other methods) were both more productive and sustainable than contemporary (or even much later) Eurasian farming techniques. The Inca competed with and developed from other empires and formal states, not tribes. And perhaps most importantly, technology is not a linear tree that advances.
The links I provided should discuss all of those topics and more.