Answer:
The Iroquois and Algonquin lived in the Northeast US and southeast Canada. The Anasazi lived in the Southwest US. The Iroquois and Anasazi lived a more sedentary lifestyle, while the Algonquin lived a more nomadic lifestyle. The Algonquin hunted and fished for food, while the Iroquois and Anasazi hunted, but also grew crops. Algonquin lived in wigwams (dome-shaped homes), Iroquois lived in long houses, and the Anasazi lived in Adobe style homes called pueblos. They all used what was available in nature for the creation of their homes. Algonquin society was patriarchal, Iroquois was matriarchal, and Anasazi was more matriarchal. The Algonquin and Iroquois were actually confederacies. They were actually different tribes of native americans that banded together in times of need.
No one is sure how the Anaszi declined. Some believe that they were attacked by a more hostile group or groups of indians. Others believe that they exhausted the few natural resources that existed within their desert environment. The Algonquin and Iroquois societies still exist and thrive today. They are prominent in their ancestral lands and have played key roles within both US and Canadian governments to protect their land and interests.
OligarchyHome Social Sciences and the Law Political Science and Government Political Science: Terms and ConceptsInternational Encyclopedia...International Encyclopedia...The Columbia Encyclopedia,...The Oxford Pocket Dictionary...Further reading<span>TOOLS </span>Oligarchy<span>International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | </span>1968COPYRIGHT 2008 Thomson Gale.Oligarchy
bibliography
The word “oligarchy” and the concepts which it symbolizes originated in ancient Greece. In its basic use, the word identified one of the general forms of government recognized by the Greeks: that in which political government is conducted by a few persons or families. It was also used more narrowly, by Aristotle for example, to refer to the debased form of aristocracy, that is, to government by the few or by a faction. The term “oligarchy” was also used to refer to the small group of persons who enjoyed a monopoly of political control in oligarchic governments; the term usually had the added sense that the oligarchy ruled in its own rather than in the public interest. For Aristotle, classification of governments rested on two independent variables: the number of persons who ruled and the purposes served by their rule. Oligarchy was present when a few persons ruled for their own satisfaction.
Development of the concept. The original uses of the term were associated with particular social and political regimes and with intellectual modes of analyzing them. Typically, societies were small and traditional and rested on established classes, including a slave class. Within Greek cities citizenship status often identified a large but still minority class that could at least claim to participate in political decisions. Whatever the changes in political forms, this “upper class” was relatively stable by reason of property holding, authority relations with other classes, social position, and so on, and oligarchy could reasonably be expected to be succeeded by other known forms of government. Classical analysts found oligarchies to be endemic among ancient states, but they viewed them as unstable since they rested on military, economic, and leadership factors which were transitory as compared with the continuing forces which supported the relatively large upper classes in traditionalist societies.
In the modern view, these classical conceptions, including oligarchy and the ideas associated with it, are far too simple for effective analysis. Indeed, classical writing makes it clear that the conceptions based on the formal structure of governments were not adequate even then, in spite of the particular emphasis given to form. Greek analysts dealt with the phenomena of power, with the importance of procedures, and, of course, with the paramount role of values. These matters were merged with discussions of political form, but the elements were not clearly discriminated. The subtleties and complexities of Greek political thought do not appear to good advantage in this particular classificatory system.
In the 1840s, the U.S was struck with the idea of <em>manifest destiny</em>. An idea that America should control North America from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. Mexico had the legal right to Texas thus dominated California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Two territories stood in America's way of accomplishing the manifest destiny idea; first, the Oregon Territory that was occupied by both Great Britain and the United States and the Western and Southwestern areas owned by Mexico. The differences between the United States and Mexico over the border of Texas led to the Mexican American War that resulted in American gaining ownership of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The ownership of these territories fulfilled the '<em>Manifest Destiny' </em>of the U.S stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Manifest Destiny.
