I am presently reading a big, thick book called The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, which seems to take a roughly anarchist or libertarian view of things. (Along with James Scott's Against the Grain, recently completed.) One interesting comparison is between Northwest and northern California Indians. The authors describe the two, essentially, as the first slave and free states in America. Northwest Indians were rich with salmon and other sea products, but stratified into three classes, much like the Old South. (They haven't mentioned that analogy yet, but it begs mentioning.) Even the "poor whites" (commoners) tried to get out of the hard work of fishing. Aristocrats would only deign to hunt whales. (And, no doubt, humans in slave raids, to get someone to actually do the work.) The Northwest Indians were also great artists.
By contrast, these authors paint a very egalitarian portrait of the Indians in northern California. Their staple was acorns, apparently, which took a lot of work to process. They lived well enough, though, generally without slaves, and with a strong "Protestant" work ethic, and an attachment to money. They decorated their homes far more plainly than did the Northwest Indians.
The point of the comparison was that peoples define themselves in contrast to other peoples. I find this credible. The thing about a southerner was, not that you owned slaves, but that you weren't a Yankee. That phenomenon may also explain why Americans don't play much soccer.
While I've sometimes suggested that Seattle, Washington may be the only city in the world named for TWO slave owners, it is odd to think that in a sense, the Northwest may have been the original "Old South." And that Berkeley really once was relatively enlightened.