That isn't evidence in favor of your position. You would need to show that I wrote my book with literally zero help from you, direct or indirect. You would need to show that you did absolutely nothing that in any way, shape, or form, however minor, helped me to write a single word.

During the time I was writing it, did we never have a single conversation, so that I never bounced any ideas off you? Did you not, yourself, work at anything, or spend money on anything, or pay any taxes? Of course you contributed! Not as much as I did, and by the laws of our society the direct rewards once the sucker gets published go to me, my publisher, and my agent and not to you, but that doesn't mean you had no bearing on it at all.

And yet none of those individual people produced anything entirely by themselves with no contribution from anyone else.

You ARE being productive just by existing in a society; of course, most people do rather more than that, and so are more productive than this minimal example.

Such that the government owns the individual in the same way a slaveowner owned a slave? No.

Not at all. You're probably familiar with Henry Ford's statement, "People can have the Model T in any color, as long as it's black." From this we may deduce that all Model T Fords were black. Does it follow that Barack Obama, who is black, is a Model T Ford?

For some quality B to be a defining characteristic of condition A, two statements must be true: "All A are B," and "Everything B is A." With respect to slavery, you have identified a characteristic for which "All A are B" is true, but "Everything B is A" is false." As such, it is not a defining characteristic.

No, but humans can be said to be uncivilized with them, and for most of our time on this planet they were.

(Humans do not even exist without them.)

Behavior appropriate to life in cities, or in a society that includes cities. (It's also sometimes used to mean "polite behavior" but that's not what I mean.)

Almost all Indians had agriculture, yes. That means they were no longer precivilized and were on their way to being civilized. There were a few exceptions.

The pueblos, the Iroquois villages, and so on are not what would usually be considered "cities." They were villages. The really important line had been crossed, in that the Indians no longer depended on foraging and hunting, but they were not quite there yet. Their institutions and practices also showed this transitional quality; for example, the Iroquois practiced communal land ownership even though they were farming rather than foraging. Civilized communities generally divided land up into private ownership, at least de facto if not de jure.

Tenochtitlan was a city. Thus, the Aztec were civilized. The Iroquois were not, but they were protocivilized.

Not necessarily. Humans are a resilient species, capable of operating outside any narrow genetically-defined bounds. (BTW 7,000 years is only about 350 generations at the most, not 1,000. Nobody has children at the age of 7.) We can function in a civilization, but we still feel the pull of the primal arrangements. We tend to form small communities of people we trust, like, and/or are related to, within our civilized larger communities; we trust the leadership within those micro-communities in ways we never trust the formal government; and within those micro-communities we tend to resurrect the old economy of sharing (as we do in families) rather than the newer trade-based economy.

It's natural to feel a wistful desire to return to our precivilized roots, but it's not possible to do that any more.