I don't know where you got that from. I've never said anything remotely like that but if pushed to choose, I'd say it's actually the opposite. Aside from the fact that you can't lump all indigenous cultures into one basket, egalitarian cultures that value the wellbeing of the group and reject artificial hierarchies have a lot on modern Western cultures. But that's really neither here nor there really when discussing whether or not patriarchy arose amongst humans 6-9 thousand years ago.
You don't understand patriarchy, because you persist in viewing it through the feminist definition rather than the anthropological/sociological one. The short version is that with the rise of agriculture world-wide, human societies in general went from egalitarian ones what used the well-being of the group as a survival strategy to ones that were hierarchical, class-oriented, and where traditional power was obtained and maintained through coercion and intimidation. According to UCLA economists who studied this, this social structure spread and became dominant (although not universal) because it was so destabilizing. Patriarchy exists in America today and in the Western world in general because it developed thousands of years ago in the precursors to these cultures.
In a modern American context, this means that everything from racism, to homophobia, to school yard bullying is a function of patriarchy (which is at its core a dominance based hierarchy). Here's a quote from an article in New Scientist:
“FOR 5000 years, humans have grown accustomed to living in societies dominated by the privileged few. But it wasn’t always this way. For tens of thousands of years, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were widespread. And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organized ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status, and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority, or resources than others.
Decision-making was decentralized and leadership ad hoc; there weren’t any chiefs. There were sporadic hot-blooded fights between individuals, of course, but there was no organized conflict between groups. Nor were there strong notions of private property and therefore any need for territorial defense. These social norms affected gender roles as well; women were important producers and relatively empowered, and marriages were typically monogamous.” (as distinct from harems or polygyny — socially monogamous does not necessarily equate to sexually monogamous, however)"
The first sentence of the New Scientist quote above is important because it speaks to a central aspect of patriarchy — social stratification. This was the first time that class distinctions or significant hierarchy came into widespread use, and they were maintained by force or the threat of violence. This is an important aspect of patriarchy — a social system that embraces and rewards ruthlessness and a might makes right mentality. This is distinctly different from a time when the wellbeing of the entire clan or settlement was a primary survival strategy."
Unless you grasp the larger historical and societal implications of patriarchy as well as the current cultural implications that have little to do with a historical power imbalance between men and women, you don't actually understand patriarchy. You seem to believe that I'm saying that indigenous cultures have a history of patriarchy, when I'm actually saying the exact opposite of that. Take a breath and calm down your emotions so that you can actually perceive what I'm saying - rather than what your subconscious mind assumes I'm saying based on your biases and enmities.
This is my academic area of expertise and I've written probably 50 research-based articles about it, so your off the cuff opining about things that I haven't actually said and don't actually believe aren't really moving the ball. You want to have an actual discussion, fine, but what you are doing now just reads of dominance posturing where you are hell-bent on finding some way to show me up rather than actually engaging with what I've said. It's pretty tiresome. If you can't actually hold a meaningful discussion, I have better things to do.
