Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement

[kengs333]

Land is a birthright, essential to the expression of our culture.

Sounds like something Hitler would have said.

1) The land is sacred to us. It defines our identities, belief system, languages and way of life.

Hitler would agree with this wholeheartedly.

[noahbody]

They were our allies. We made treaties with them. We broke treaties. The treaties are still legally valid and important as some of them define Canada's borders, etc.

The treaties cannot be ignored.

It is simply a tedious bit of law we have to go through, and the governments are doing their level best to make it as difficult and dangerous as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are both from the Caledonia region and you are native. If so, please explain your use of pronouns. Thanks.

[Argus]

I am a bit short of time at present, but I had a good glimpse at the Haudenosaunee Statement. It seems to me to be a far superior kind of template for a constitution than whichever was used for the incredibly long, legaleeze template of the Canadian one. The U.S. of A.'s constitution is also a very good one, but inspired by the Iroquoian template. We have a lot to learn from the First Nations.

As for the value of conquests, they are essentially crimes against humanity, or at the very least government-sponsered armed robbery.

I'll come back on this later.

Well, given ALL the land claimed by the natives was theirs by right of conquest against earlier tribes that pretty much eliminates all pretense to any moral consideration their claims might be given, right?

[Argus]

Conquering a nation is the simple part. Keeping it conquered is a never-ending, costly, energy and time consuming process which frequently ends by giving up the conquest and granting the conquered their independance.

Nobody accepts to be conquered, even when the conqueror says its for their own good.

The natives have never asked for independence. That would require they pay their own bills. What they want is full control over everything they do - with us paying the bills. Kind of like a sullen teenager who wants dad to pay all his bills but wants to choose what to buy and how to live, doesn't want to work, doesn't want to do chores or go to school, and wants to make as much noise and mess in dad's house as he chooses.

[Argus]

Ownership by an individual is against their custom, but collective use and stewardship are a form of ownership in that responsibility for the land is assumed by the community for its benefit and those of future generations.

This common belief of Natives as "stewards" of the land is nothing but romantic nonsense, you know. The Natives used the land for everything they could scratch from it, to the best of their knowledge. If they could have had better lives by clear cutting timber and open pit mining - presuming they had the technology to do that, they'd have done it in an instant. We are the first society, to the best of my knowledge, with the wealth necessary to worry about things like that, to put in place practical restraints on our own use and enjoyment of the land in order to protect the environment.

They have compelling claims for land other than which they "settled" because they have a contract that says so.

In some cases they have, but there are many factors involved, including how much they latter sold or ceded, and in many other cases there is no such contract indicating ownership of the land. That is why so many of the land claims are complicated not only by "oral history" but by contradictory claims by different tribes.

Unfortunately, this has coincided with a resurgence of sorts of the Orangist crowd who now seek to subvert the meaning of "equality" and try rewrite history to suit their own subordinating ends; constantly and cowardly threatening to release the hounds (be they police or the military) to enforce their will.

You mean some people are getting pissed off at native violence and want it brought under control? I wouldn't call that orangist, merely a reflection of our desire for law and order and our distaste for violent criminals.

And, quite frankly, an ever growing population of aboriginal youth "can not stand this stuff anymore".

A very large proportion of the blame for the miserable conditions many natives find themselves in should be laid to rest on the natives themselves. Their leadership is usually poor and often corrupt and self-serving. And native culture has deteriorated to the point of wholesale drunkenness, drug taking, glue sniffing, suicide, violence and casual vandalism. In many cases native housing is in a pitiful state because the natives won't care for it, and destroy it. Native water supplies are endangered in many instances because the natives insisted on being given the task of looking after water plants and weren't up to the task. So don't lay everything on the evil "orangists".

[old_bold&cold]

I will admit to being aprox 1/3 indian blood, and yes I have listened to my grandparents when they told stories and about how things were. They were reserve status indian, but never lived on a reserve. They chose at that time to assimolate into the Canadian society, and while my grandfather, did hunt fish and trap for aliving in his youth, he also was a guide and game warden in his area later in life. While I guess all of the siblings and there's as well probably could get indian status and take advantage of the tax breaks and such, I am not sure I ever will. It is not that I am ashamed of my heritage, but rather that I have grown beyond it. The biggest problem with native communities is alcohol, and other substance abuse. The fact that their way of life is dying do more to the wishes by the youths to have all modern conveniences. The old ways have gone and a new way of trying to make others pay for their woes. I guess I could be like so many others and try to force my opinions by blockades and violence, but that would be the way of the natives.

We need the courts to push for the court orders to be enforced and if there is resistence, then the use of force will be required and those then who are in contempt should be jailed and heavily fines for their actions. This is because if it were anyone else who did those things, that is exactly what would happen. I will fight to the death to see you are treated equally in todays society, but will also fight tooth and nail to make sure you are not treated better then any one else.

As I have said before, this whole land claims bit will come to an end in my lifetime and remeber I am old and retired. It maybe that it will be negoiated, but I do not think that will happen really. I believe that it will take force to bring it under control and in the end it will be the natives that will lose out. Sooner or later the government will have to act, and when they do it will not be to keep status but to end all reserves and all money to natives, with giving them equal rights and things but to either assimolate into todays society or be left on their own, but with no help from government. It is just what I can see this going to. I do not say I want it but in the end it has to happen. The land claims is going to be the trigger and now the natives are pulling that trigger, it will generate the responce.

For over 200 years society has allowed the natives their chance to fit in, or live in reserves paid for by society. The costs of the reserves has been born by all tax payers. Since it seems that this is not enough for the native youths of today, then they should see what happens when they need to support themselves.

[M.Dancer]

Too many threads on the same subject.

Some one should speak to She who Spams

[M.Dancer]

Complete and utter revisionist nonsense. Wade is already in jeopardy of his job, or already fired, for making up this kind of crap. The US constitution is an outgrowth of the enlightenment and humanism, not some stone age tribe wandering around in the woods giving each other short haircuts. Lord save us from nonsense like this.

I got to agree, but not that it's revisionist, the myth has been around for decades and decades. Never the less, it's still hogwash. The indian form of rule was always more of a trila by ordeal than habeas corpus.

[ScottSA]

Jennie and microdot were thrilling yesterday at the idea that breech clouted savages with stone tools had endowed the framers of the US Constitution with their political system, by posting the usual cut and paste revisionism that usually comes out of the fringe humanisms like "womens studies" or in this case "native studies." They posted a piece by some staff writer of a paper and then sat back and gloated, so I posted a rebuttal that seems to have been missed...so should I be given to understand that it's now my turn to gloat, or would either like to address this repost:

I await ScottSA's meaningful and insightful reply.*

*Please note: "meaningful and insightful" is not to be confused with "spiteful and hurtful".

Yeah, this myth has been floating around feel good liberal circles for a while, popping up now and then with citations to a tenuous link between Franklin and the Iroquios federation. It's based on the same sort of coincidental misread as troothar notions; there were "squibs", for instance, in the WTC while it was collapsing, and there are "squibs" when a building is demolished by set explosions; ergo the WTC was demolished by explosives. It's rot, and so is this. It's like looking at a round war shield and claiming the Indians invented the wheel. For Christ's sake, the Anglo-Saxon Witan was closer to the US Constitution than the Iroquios federation. So, for that matter, was the Roman Republican government. But hey, don't believe me; here's someone even more authoritative than the "Washington File Staff Writer" you cited, as hard as that may be to believe:

"Abstract:

The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution, but it is worthy of study as an independently developed political system with the oldest surviving constitution in North America. A systematic institutional analysis of the Great Binding Law, the orally transmitted constitution of the Confederation, reveals, among other things: tribal inequality despite their formal equality under a unanimity rule; a high level of responsiveness despite a nondemocratic, elitist method for selecting leaders; many ancillary institutions for achieving a traditional form of consensus rather than simple majority rule; two means of elevating men to the Confederation Council, each a paradoxical blend of the pre political and the post-traditional;..."

http://radicalreference.info/node/1011

Or, if you don't like that, here's a wiki article that cites several well known historians:

"The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited by some as one of the influences on the United States Constitution. However, that theory has fallen into disfavor among many historians and is regarded by others as mythology. Historian Jack Rakove writes: "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois." Researcher Brian Cook writes: "The Iroquois probably held some sway over the thinking of the Framers and the development of the U.S. Constitution and the development of American democracy, albeit perhaps indirectly or even subconsciously... However, the opposition is probably also correct. The Iroquois influence is not as great as [some historians] would like it to be, the framers simply did not revere or even understand much of Iroquois culture, and their influences were European or classical - not wholly New World."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ie5Jur...cd=11&gl=ca

So if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to think that stone age savages invented the US constitution, have at it, but you might as well posit that it came from Atlanteans after a long swim. Why the universities put up with this revisionist crap, based on one or two lines sprinkled here and there in memoirs, usually NOT saying what they are claimed to say, and a single pro forma visit by a bunch of Iroquios chiefs who happened to be in town one day, is beyond me.

[AngusThermopyle]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer to your post if I were you.

[jennie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are both from the Caledonia region and you are native. If so, please explain your use of pronouns. Thanks.

I am not native. I am just a Canadian trying to get my government to obey its own laws.

[jennie]

Jennie and microdot were thrilling yesterday at the idea that breech clouted savages with stone tools had endowed the framers of the US Constitution with their political system, by posting the usual cut and paste revisionism that usually comes out of the fringe humanisms like "womens studies" or in this case "native studies." They posted a piece by some staff writer of a paper and then sat back and gloated, so I posted a rebuttal that seems to have been missed...so should I be given to understand that it's now my turn to gloat, or would either like to address this repost:

Yeah, this myth has been floating around feel good liberal circles for a while, popping up now and then with citations to a tenuous link between Franklin and the Iroquios federation. It's based on the same sort of coincidental misread as troothar notions; there were "squibs", for instance, in the WTC while it was collapsing, and there are "squibs" when a building is demolished by set explosions; ergo the WTC was demolished by explosives. It's rot, and so is this. It's like looking at a round war shield and claiming the Indians invented the wheel. For Christ's sake, the Anglo-Saxon Witan was closer to the US Constitution than the Iroquios federation. So, for that matter, was the Roman Republican government. But hey, don't believe me; here's someone even more authoritative than the "Washington File Staff Writer" you cited, as hard as that may be to believe:

"Abstract:

The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution, but it is worthy of study as an independently developed political system with the oldest surviving constitution in North America. A systematic institutional analysis of the Great Binding Law, the orally transmitted constitution of the Confederation, reveals, among other things: tribal inequality despite their formal equality under a unanimity rule; a high level of responsiveness despite a nondemocratic, elitist method for selecting leaders; many ancillary institutions for achieving a traditional form of consensus rather than simple majority rule; two means of elevating men to the Confederation Council, each a paradoxical blend of the pre political and the post-traditional;..."

http://radicalreference.info/node/1011

Or, if you don't like that, here's a wiki article that cites several well known historians:

"The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited by some as one of the influences on the United States Constitution. However, that theory has fallen into disfavor among many historians and is regarded by others as mythology. Historian Jack Rakove writes: "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois." Researcher Brian Cook writes: "The Iroquois probably held some sway over the thinking of the Framers and the development of the U.S. Constitution and the development of American democracy, albeit perhaps indirectly or even subconsciously... However, the opposition is probably also correct. The Iroquois influence is not as great as [some historians] would like it to be, the framers simply did not revere or even understand much of Iroquois culture, and their influences were European or classical - not wholly New World."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ie5Jur...cd=11&gl=ca

So if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to think that stone age savages invented the US constitution, have at it, but you might as well posit that it came from Atlanteans after a long swim. Why the universities put up with this revisionist crap, based on one or two lines sprinkled here and there in memoirs, usually NOT saying what they are claimed to say, and a single pro forma visit by a bunch of Iroquios chiefs who happened to be in town one day, is beyond me.

I compliment you for presenting the other side of the debate.

[jennie]

I will admit to being aprox 1/3 indian blood, and yes I have listened to my grandparents when they told stories and about how things were. They were reserve status indian, but never lived on a reserve. They chose at that time to assimolate into the Canadian society, and while my grandfather, did hunt fish and trap for aliving in his youth, he also was a guide and game warden in his area later in life. While I guess all of the siblings and there's as well probably could get indian status and take advantage of the tax breaks and such, I am not sure I ever will. It is not that I am ashamed of my heritage, but rather that I have grown beyond it. The biggest problem with native communities is alcohol, and other substance abuse. The fact that their way of life is dying do more to the wishes by the youths to have all modern conveniences. The old ways have gone and a new way of trying to make others pay for their woes. I guess I could be like so many others and try to force my opinions by blockades and violence, but that would be the way of the natives.

We need the courts to push for the court orders to be enforced and if there is resistence, then the use of force will be required and those then who are in contempt should be jailed and heavily fines for their actions. This is because if it were anyone else who did those things, that is exactly what would happen. I will fight to the death to see you are treated equally in todays society, but will also fight tooth and nail to make sure you are not treated better then any one else.

As I have said before, this whole land claims bit will come to an end in my lifetime and remeber I am old and retired. It maybe that it will be negoiated, but I do not think that will happen really. I believe that it will take force to bring it under control and in the end it will be the natives that will lose out. Sooner or later the government will have to act, and when they do it will not be to keep status but to end all reserves and all money to natives, with giving them equal rights and things but to either assimolate into todays society or be left on their own, but with no help from government. It is just what I can see this going to. I do not say I want it but in the end it has to happen. The land claims is going to be the trigger and now the natives are pulling that trigger, it will generate the responce.

For over 200 years society has allowed the natives their chance to fit in, or live in reserves paid for by society. The costs of the reserves has been born by all tax payers. Since it seems that this is not enough for the native youths of today, then they should see what happens when they need to support themselves.

obc What an interesting history you have.

Yes "society has allowed the natives their chance to fit in". By now,those who want to have done so. Many have not, and still follow traditional spiritual ways and are still strongly connected to their land. Canada does not have the authority to demand or force assimilation. We are the country of freedom, so how can we 'force' people to 'want' become mainstream Canadian. It makes no sense.

The laws are such that aboriginal and treaty rights must be upheld. It is a different context than you grew up in no doubt. The youth of these generations of parents know their rights and they will not allow Canada to be a hypocrite. I think this is a very good thing.

Also, it has been shown that youth suicide and other social problems are highest in communities that feel the most helpless to control their own destiny. In communities pursuing land claims and self-governance, suicide rates approach zero.

'Taking back their power', taking back their land and traditional governance and control over their economic future is powerful medicine, it seems.

It is a different time now, a time when it is recognized internationally that the colonizing powers must accommodate the rights of those they colonized. Canada is no different, no better, no worse than most other countries in this respect.

Canada has a long way to go, though. However, the court decisions keep piling up and reinforcing the fact that Canada must respect Indigenous land rights, so things are improving by leaps and bounds right now.

It won't go back. It is a new world.

And the strength of the Aboriginal communities who stand up against developers, mining companies, logging companies, etc. is strength that will help us all, perhaps prevent environmental disaster.

History will show that we owe them a great debt.

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

I compliment you for presenting the other side of the debate.

There is no "debate." There's nonsensical revisionism and there's historical accuracy. One cannot simply posit ridiculous notions and then announce that there's a "debate." In all too many cases revisionism has been flogged so vociferously that it has become a truism, like the idiotic notion that colonialism was conducted entirely for "profit" and never gave anything back to the colonialized nation, or that treaties carried out to the letter decades ago should be re-opened and re-interpreted in the 21st century.

The US constitution evolved over a millenium of thought that could only have come about as a result of the particular history of the west. Factors like the Black Plague, which in a flash decimated the population, astronomically inflated the value of labour and the labourer, and led, eventually, to the rise of technological innovation and humanism; the enlightenment; the reformation; are only some of the myraid events and processes that the US constitution arose from, but one of the processes we can be sure it didn't arise from was the honored-in-the-breech tradition of a proto-political gang of stone age hunter-gatherers.

[jennie]

There is no "debate." There's nonsensical revisionism and there's historical accuracy. One cannot simply posit ridiculous notions and then announce that there's a "debate." In all too many cases revisionism has been flogged so vociferously that it has become a truism, like the idiotic notion that colonialism was conducted entirely for "profit" and never gave anything back to the colonialized nation, or that treaties carried out to the letter decades ago should be re-opened and re-interpreted in the 21st century.

The US constitution evolved over a millenium of thought that could only have come about as a result of the particular history of the west. Factors like the Black Plague, which in a flash decimated the population, astronomically inflated the value of labour and the labourer, and led, eventually, to the rise of technological innovation and humanism; the enlightenment; the reformation; are only some of the myraid events and processes that the US constitution arose from, but one of the processes we can be sure it didn't arise from was the honored-in-the-breech tradition of a proto-political gang of stone age hunter-gatherers.

If there were so many influences, why would they NOT have considered the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee?

That would seem rather foolish. Of course they did. However, the racism of the time may prevent them from recording it.

Are you familiar with it?

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

If there were so many influences, why would they NOT have considered the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee?

That would seem rather foolish. Of course they did. However, the racism of the time may prevent them from recording it.

It is curious (and ironic) that such "legitimacy" is sought by establishing an association with "influencing" the US Constitution while little notice or mention has been made of any association with equivalent Canadian founding documents.

[jennie]

It is curious (and ironic) that such "legitimacy" is sought by establishing an association with "influencing" the US Constitution while little notice or mention has been made of any association with equivalent Canadian founding documents.

Because they were British, transferred to us, not developed here.

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[bush_cheney2004]

Because they were developed in Britain.

Bingo...there's your trouble.

[Alexandra]

I am not native. I am just a Canadian trying to get my government to obey its own laws.

Hello Saga,

I see you found this Board; and you are now jennie/jen?

Would have thought that enmasse and the 'native issues' threads on those other boards were more conducive to your opening of the numerous native topics rather than this board. Although I assume Michelle would tend to both consolidate all native threads into that one forum and disallow posting the native issues anywhere else? Like in the 'politics' forum?

Or it could be just a matter of those other board's members lacking interest in the stories, which is obvious to the casual reader. No doubt the same will happen on all boards?

I'm sure Charles will be along to consolidate all of these threads too Saga. It's a favorite peeve of his.

(ps. do you still have your own 'native' forum?)

`

[ScottSA]

If there were so many influences, why would they NOT have considered the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee?

That would seem rather foolish. Of course they did. However, the racism of the time may prevent them from recording it.

Are you familiar with it?

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

No, I think the "racism of the time" made them scoff at it, actually, since the agreements of various extended families in a stone age hunter gatherer...errr..."society" have little or no relevance to a continental constitutional democracy. It's the same "racism" aka "common sense" that makes most people laugh at the idiocy of the idea.

[Posit]

No, I think the "racism of the time" made them scoff at it, actually, since the agreements of various extended families in a stone age hunter gatherer...errr..."society" have little or no relevance to a continental constitutional democracy. It's the same "racism" aka "common sense" that makes most people laugh at the idiocy of the idea.

There is only a fine line between common sense and racism.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

[ScottSA]

There is only a fine line between common sense and racism.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

I take it you are throwing common sense to the winds then, lest it smack of racism? Truly you wouldn't even make it through boot camp, never mind ever having a hope of becoming an officer. I doubt you've ever had a job.

[Visionseeker]

Jennie and microdot were thrilling yesterday at the idea that breech clouted savages with stone tools had endowed the framers of the US Constitution with their political system, by posting the usual cut and paste revisionism that usually comes out of the fringe humanisms like "womens studies" or in this case "native studies." They posted a piece by some staff writer of a paper and then sat back and gloated, so I posted a rebuttal that seems to have been missed...so should I be given to understand that it's now my turn to gloat, or would either like to address this repost:

Yeah, this myth has been floating around feel good liberal circles for a while, popping up now and then with citations to a tenuous link between Franklin and the Iroquios federation. It's based on the same sort of coincidental misread as troothar notions; there were "squibs", for instance, in the WTC while it was collapsing, and there are "squibs" when a building is demolished by set explosions; ergo the WTC was demolished by explosives. It's rot, and so is this. It's like looking at a round war shield and claiming the Indians invented the wheel. For Christ's sake, the Anglo-Saxon Witan was closer to the US Constitution than the Iroquios federation. So, for that matter, was the Roman Republican government. But hey, don't believe me; here's someone even more authoritative than the "Washington File Staff Writer" you cited, as hard as that may be to believe:

"Abstract:

The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution, but it is worthy of study as an independently developed political system with the oldest surviving constitution in North America. A systematic institutional analysis of the Great Binding Law, the orally transmitted constitution of the Confederation, reveals, among other things: tribal inequality despite their formal equality under a unanimity rule; a high level of responsiveness despite a nondemocratic, elitist method for selecting leaders; many ancillary institutions for achieving a traditional form of consensus rather than simple majority rule; two means of elevating men to the Confederation Council, each a paradoxical blend of the pre political and the post-traditional;..."

http://radicalreference.info/node/1011

To offer an abstract containing the unsupported hypothesis "The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution" is not very compelling. If, OTOH you were to share Loewan's arguments in support of this thesis we then might debate their merits.

Or, if you don't like that, here's a wiki article that cites several well known historians:

"The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited by some as one of the influences on the United States Constitution. However, that theory has fallen into disfavor among many historians and is regarded by others as mythology. Historian Jack Rakove writes: "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois." Researcher Brian Cook writes: "The Iroquois probably held some sway over the thinking of the Framers and the development of the U.S. Constitution and the development of American democracy, albeit perhaps indirectly or even subconsciously... However, the opposition is probably also correct. The Iroquois influence is not as great as [some historians] would like it to be, the framers simply did not revere or even understand much of Iroquois culture, and their influences were European or classical - not wholly New World."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ie5Jur...cd=11&gl=ca

Wiki is great when acquainting oneself with the basics, but not so good when addressing contentious issues.

Rakove would have us believe that the concept of influence must be confined to what is stated in the records of the constitutional debates. This is not only a very restrictive view, but one that flies in the face of common sense. Debates are about the exchange of ideas, not the attributing of their source. One can well imagine just how receptive an audience one would have at the time when beginning with "I've learned that the (stone age) savages...".

Historians who deny any influence state that the principals had little contact or knowledge of "indian" culture. This is utter nonsense. Most of the revolutionary leaders had been part of the ruling classes who necessarily had indirect or direct contact with aboriginal communities to settle matters of trade, allegiance, intelligence, or settlement. It is a poor negotiator who does not learn all they can about their counterpart. Many of the Founding Fathers knew the Indians quite well.

Franklin (for one) had many dealings with, and a great respect for the Haudenosaunee. He also learned a great deal from their governing structures and forwarded them as a solution to the pending French threat in 1754 at the Albany Congress where he argued for the unification of seven colonies ACCORDING TO THE MODEL OF THE CONFEDERACY. While Franklin's proposal was rebuffed, one participant (a future congressman and later to become the father of James Fenimore Cooper) highlighted two additional virtues of the Iroquois model: democracy and impeachment (read the Last of the Mohicans now that you know this and see if you don't look at the story a little bit differently).

The idea that the revolutionary minds were in no way influenced by their contact with aboriginal communities is not only false, but fully contradicted by their own writings. I have many works I'd recommend, but I'll offer this link as an introduction:

A NEW CHAPTER: Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine

So if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to think that stone age savages invented the US constitution, have at it, but you might as well posit that it came from Atlanteans after a long swim. Why the universities put up with this revisionist crap, based on one or two lines sprinkled here and there in memoirs, usually NOT saying what they are claimed to say, and a single pro forma visit by a bunch of Iroquios chiefs who happened to be in town one day, is beyond me.[/color]

You use terms like "stone age savages" and then question the wisdom of universities, advance an abstract and wiki to support your bigotry and then gloat at the result? Well, I suppose your momma can find reason to be proud.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Visionseeker

[ScottSA]

To offer an abstract containing the unsupported hypothesis "The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution" is not very compelling. If, OTOH you were to share Loewan's arguments in support of this thesis we then might debate their merits.

Wiki is great when acquainting oneself with the basics, but not so good when addressing contentious issues.

Rakove would have us believe that the concept of influence must be confined to what is stated in the records of the constitutional debates. This is not only a very restrictive view, but one that flies in the face of common sense. Debates are about the exchange of ideas, not the attributing of their source. One can well imagine just how receptive an audience one would have at the time when beginning with "I've learned that the (stone age) savages...".

Historians who deny any influence state that the principals had little contact or knowledge of "indian" culture. This is utter nonsense. Most of the revolutionary leaders had been part of the ruling classes who necessarily had indirect or direct contact with aboriginal communities to settle matters of trade, allegiance, intelligence, or settlement. It is a poor negotiator who does not learn all they can about their counterpart. Many of the Founding Fathers knew the Indians quite well.

Franklin (for one) had many dealings with, and a great respect for the Haudenosaunee. He also learned a great deal from their governing structures and forwarded them as a solution to the pending French threat in 1754 at the Albany Congress where he argued for the unification of seven colonies ACCORDING TO THE MODEL OF THE CONFEDERACY. While Franklin's proposal was rebuffed, one participant (a future congressman and later to become the father of James Fenimore Cooper) highlighted two additional virtues of the Iroquois model: democracy and impeachment (read the Last of the Mohicans now that you know this and see if you don't look at the story a little bit differently).

The idea that the revolutionary minds were in no way influenced by their contact with aboriginal communities is not only false, but fully contradicted by their own writings. I have many works I'd recommend, but I'll offer this link as an introduction:

A NEW CHAPTER: Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine

You use terms like "stone age savages" and then question the wisdom of universities, advance an abstract and wiki to support your bigotry and then gloat at the result? Well, I suppose your momma can find reason to be proud.

Great googling. The sad fact is that you can only find the very odd mention of it in history, and no real historians who endorse the harebrained nonsense. Someone is James Fenimore Cooper's father? That's an endorsement of authenticity? Here's one of the funniest things you've ever read. It's by Mark Twain, about JFC:

"There are nineteen rules governing literary art in domain of romantic fiction -- some say twenty-two. In "Deerslayer," Cooper violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require:

1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the "Deerslayer" tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in air.

2. They require that the episodes in a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the "Deerslayer" tale is not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to develop...

...Cooper describes the ark, but pretty obscurely. In the matter of dimensions "it was little more than a modern canal boat." Let us guess, then, that it was about one hundred and forty feet long. It was of "greater breadth than common." Let us guess then that it was about sixteen feet wide. This leviathon had been prowling down bends which were but a third as long as itself, and scraping between banks where it only had two feet of space to spare on each side. We cannot too much admire this miracle...

...The ark is one hundred and forty-feet long; the dwelling is ninety feet long. The idea of the Indians is to drop softly and secretly from the arched sapling to the dwelling as the ark creeps along under it at the rate of a mile an hour,and butcher the family. It will take the ark a minute and a half to pass under. It will take the ninety-foot dwelling a minute to pass under. Now, then, what did the six Indians do? It would take you thirty years to guess, and even then you would have to give it up, I believe. Therefore, I will tell you what the Indians did. Their chief, a person of quite extraordinary intellect for a Cooper Indian, warily watched the canal-boat as it squeezed along under him and when he had got his calculations fined down to exactly the right shade, as he judge, he let go and dropped. And missed the boat! That is actually what he did. He missed the house, and landed int he stern of the scow. It was not much of a fall, yet it knocked him silly. He lay there unconscious. If the house had been ninety-seven feet long he would have made the trip. The error lay in the construction of the house. Cooper was no architect.

There still remained in the roost five Indians. The boat has passed under and is now out of their reach. Let me explain what the five did -- you would not be able to reason it out for yourself. No. 1 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water astern of it. Then No. 2 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water still further astern of it. Then No. 3 jumped for the boat, and fell a good way astern of it. Then No. 4 jumped for the boat, and fell in the water away astern. Then even No. 5 made a jump for the boat -- for he was Cooper Indian. In that matter of intellect, the difference between a Cooper Indian and the Indian that stands in front of the cigar-shop is not spacious. The scow episode is really a sublime burst of invention; but it does not thrill, because the inaccuracy of details throw a sort of air of fictitiousness and general improbability over it. This comes of Cooper's inadequacy as observer..."

http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html

So much for the fount of James Fenimore Cooper's knowledge.

Edited September 23, 2007 by ScottSA

[kengs333]

Hello Saga,

I see you found this Board; and you are now jennie/jen?

Would have thought that enmasse and the 'native issues' threads on those other boards were more conducive to your opening of the numerous native topics rather than this board. Although I assume Michelle would tend to both consolidate all native threads into that one forum and disallow posting the native issues anywhere else? Like in the 'politics' forum?

Or it could be just a matter of those other board's members lacking interest in the stories, which is obvious to the casual reader. No doubt the same will happen on all boards?

I'm sure Charles will be along to consolidate all of these threads too Saga. It's a favorite peeve of his.

(ps. do you still have your own 'native' forum?)

`

Am I correct in thinking that this is her, too?

http://profiles.yahoo.com/ckiddonline