Horizontal Bars in a Vertical Universe

It is dangerous to make too many assumptions and references to the similarities of peoples in different parts of the world. So many factors go into producing any given culture or society...geography (weather, land fertility, number of people to interact with it, growth of local technology, etc.), timing, temperament...that surface similarities can really be overemphasized and wrongly interpreted.
For example, the camp habits and methods of choosing chieftains of Native Americans and the Mongolians under Genghis Khan have been used to argue they are the same people. Interesting, but flawed. There were tremendous differences as well; for instance, what types of chieftains. Also, assuming all the Native Americans all chose their chiefs the same way...or even all had chiefs as we would understand them...is blind to truth.
It is fascinating to note the number of tribes that appear to have been matrilineal early on, particularly in the east. Many tribes seem to have no chiefs at all while others had developed systems that Europeans took to be feudalistic, although recent scholarship has often argued that was a flawed comprehension that was applied because it was the only context the Europeans could understand. This is particularly true of the expeditions of DeSoto and those prior to him.
But those caveats aside I note certainl parallels between some of the elections being held in the Middle East and some of the elections that (fraudulently, it might be argued) resulted in the installation of numerous Native American chiefs that the tribes would claim were not real chiefs. The U.S. representatives would point to the elections and claim they were real chiefs. Many land deals were done if this same way.
A referendum would be held where a moajority of those present would, indeed, vote to sell the land. Here is the kicker...many of the people of the tribe did not understand what that meant.
For many, many tribes the traditional (and, in their terms, LEGAL) way of making voting decisions was simple. those who agreed showed up and those who disagreed stayed away. If not enough people showed up then it clearly was not the right decision.
Thus, those members who did not wish to sell the land would simply not show up believing they were casting a vote in the negative. Much to their shock, chagrin, and harm, the U.S. government would tally the affirmative votes which naturally would be the majority...and the sale would be complete.
To the U.S. it seemed like a legitimate election. They could easily point to an overwhelmingly popular decision...but it was flawed because it did not take the understanding of politics of the people voting into account. If it had the numbers would still have been overwhelming...but the result would have been the reverse.
This was then exacerberated when the tribesmen who knew they had defeated the proposition to sell their land would be surprised and upset when their homes were stolen. Well, in their eyes, their lands were stolen. In the eyes of the U.S., they were refusing to leave land they no longer owned. See the problem? Neither side understood the politics of the other, so the results were inaccurate for both.
Now I see both in South America and also in the Middle East instances where the opposition is boycotting elections. I can't speak for the elections in South America, but I can for some of those in the Middle East. Some of those elections will not be legitimate.
for many of those countries politics are based on informalities, patriarchal interactions, family relationships...and simply imposing "democratic elections" on people who do not understand the workings of them is not going to be understood or properly applied. Nation and empire building has often encountered this problem where the "builders" have the belief their success implicitly means their form of government is the pinnacle of history, that all of history has been building to this moment when political perfection has been achieved and it is therefore their duty to spread that same system to their victi...err, beneficiaries (read conquered nations).
While it is certainly true the indigenous peoples of the United States were better treated than those of virtually any other country, still history is looking back and (rightfully) applying a rather harsh interpretation of the actions that led to the marginalization of every tribe within the borders of the U.S. I wonder how the treatment of the peoples in the Middle East, and this applies much wider than just Iraq, will be considered in a hundred years. If you read this entire piece, I suspect you know my suspicion.