Ask Lemmygrad

Yes the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma had slaves and sided with the confederates due to self-preservation. Obviously not on the scale as the deep south and there was division in their ranks about that.

Many indigenous societies practiced slave economies, regularly destroyed their own environment, waged brutal wars, massacred civilians, tortured captives, ritually sacrificed people, raped women, kidnapped children, performed cannibalism, and yes some even scalped people (though this one wasn't a native development but rather poetic revenge for colonists scalping them first) and other terrible things because they weren't oh-so-noble and honorable people who were somehow more moral than the colonizers. That perception of indigenous people is as much a racist stereotype as the ones that try to conflate all the above things with every tribe, city-state, nation, etc. and act like they were uniquely evil for doing these things and needed Good Christian Values™ to "civilize" them.

It is possible to recognize that these societies weren't perfect and to not romanticize them while also opposing their aggressive destruction at the hands of white supremacists, who either exaggerated their worst attributes or in some cases just made shit up to justify ethnic cleansing, segregation, and land theft. Whenever someone says something like "Native Americans owned slaves" it is not being brought up as a statement of fact or a tidbit of history but for the purpose of driving a wedge between indigenous and black people; just as when people bring up the Buffalo Soldiers and other black units that helped terrorize indigenous communities. They aren't mentioned these things in good faith, they're being racist and trying to turn marginalized communities against each other to keep them divided. Reactionaries do this because they fear a united front. This is an example of how identity politics get weaponized against the Left.

Hi there I study pre-colonial mesoamerican archeology... It depends what society ur talking about.

maybe they did and maybe hamas was mean those israeli ladies but that doesnt change anything

Maybe they wanted to be called civilized tribes? Five Civilized Tribes - Wikipedia

And if I may give you a suggestion. If you have a question like this, ask it at Lemmygrad or Hexbear. Avoid asking at Lemmy.ml.

I am sorry if my English is bad.

no. They had prison labor and restorative justice. Native American tribes that took prisoners in conflicts made them earn their keep. The prisoners were not owned by individuals. They were not seen as sub human and once they had earned the trust of the tribe and paid for whatever wrongs they had done they were integrated into the community.

Like 2 seconds of looking it up proves how bullshit this is and it's like les than 5% of Native Americans owned African slaves. And as far as IF Native Americans has Native American slaves... That's their own culture, which would have been their own to fix. It doesn't make what settlers did ok. That's like saying it would have been ok to genocide all of Rome, Greece, and tbh, most of the world at one point or another. Would the people saying this dumb bullshit if Moa wiped out all of Tibet? I mean shit, they scream about China doing that now when taking Tibet was general very non violent.

So yeah, anyone who says this shit is full of shit. A very small portion of Natives had African slaves. Pre settlers, some tribes had slaves but it was not like "modern" slavery. And yes, Natives did also go to war, kill each other, even do some fucked up shit between tribes. None of that makes the colonizer genocide of Natives ok.

I find people only say this because they know what happened was fucking bad, but have super fragile egos and have to like, find something to deflect blame because they are physically incapable of feeling even second hand shame.

It is important to note at this point that slavery in Aztec society was a practice clearly distinct from our western conceptions. An Aztec slave, or tlacotli, although clearly at the bottom of the social scale, possessed some personal rights. Slaves could marry freely, to another slave or a free person, and their children were born free. Although unpaid for their work, slaves were fed, clothed and housed as any citizen, living, according to some accounts, ‘almost free’ on their masters’ estates.¹⁴

Slavery could be a punishment, but many were ‘voluntary slaves’, lazy, tired, poor or in debt, who sold themselves for a fixed sum, which they had the right to spend before undertaking their servitude. A family, or group of families, might even sell a member into slavery and take turns at sharing the burden for a number of years. Slavery was not perpetual — emperors frequently performed mass manumissions at times of celebration, and masters often freed their slaves in their wills.

A slave who was to be sold also had a brief chance to escape. If he fled the market successfully, only the slave’s master and his sons having a right to stop him, then he would be set free if he could reach the tlatoani’s palace. Only an idle and delinquent slave could be sold, and not until he or she had been declared delinquent and traded three times did a slave become eligible to be sold as a human sacrifice. Slaves were very much a part of Aztec society, with both rights and responsibilities, though they were exempt from the military and labour services, which would have entitled them to the privileges of citizens.¹⁵ The sacrificial death of slaves was not the detached slaughter of strangers but the killing of familiar members of the community.

(Source.)

Native Americans did not practice scalping before colonists brought that practice with them. It actually dates back as far as ancient Greece.

also, it depended on the nation or band or culture

there were those that didn't and those that did

It wasn't chattel slavery.

It certainly wasn't mass chattel slavery at a genocidal scale.

That is the big difference.

Also, Americans owned Indigenous/Native slaves, especially in California, even up to the Civil War.