Quote:
No one is saying it was the sole inspiration or a major inspiration
OldArmy71 said:Quote:
No one is saying it was the sole inspiration or a major inspiration
So you agree that the Iroquois Confederacy was NOT a major inspiration for the Constitution.
Then why does Burns spend so much time on the Iroquois? There is at least one native American who is on screen quite a bit, and perhaps another one as well.
Does Burns spend a disproportionate time on the Iroquois versus on the European philosophers and laws and traditions and historical events that WERE major inspirations?
Quote:
He does a pretty good job with the military story
Sapper Redux said:p_bubel said:
Franklin mentioned them twice in all his writing. Maybe three times. It's not a thing.
Meanwhile multiple historians over the last 50 years have spent years researching this and it is in fact a thing.
Goose98 said:Sapper Redux said:p_bubel said:
Franklin mentioned them twice in all his writing. Maybe three times. It's not a thing.
Meanwhile multiple historians over the last 50 years have spent years researching this and it is in fact a thing.
Perhaps 'historians' like Heather Cox Richardson, who is pretty much a certifiable clown.
https://billmoyers.com/story/bill-talks-with-heather-cox-richardson-about-how-the-south-won-the-civil-war/
BQ78 said:
What do you mean by win?
The south took over 100 years to recover economically from the Civil War. I don't count that in the win column.
BQ78 said:
And that outweighs the economic destruction?
What do you think should have happened, treason trials? Not let white people vote? Military occupation for 50 years? Curious on what you think would have been a better outcome?
CanyonAg77 said:
So for acts that weren't treason, and for participating in a system that was legal, though terrible, you'd take their land?
Sapper Redux said:CanyonAg77 said:
So for acts that weren't treason, and for participating in a system that was legal, though terrible, you'd take their land?
It was treason. And yes. They profited off of the forced labor and torture of others. Those who were tortured are entitled to compensation.
bobbranco said:Sapper Redux said:CanyonAg77 said:
So for acts that weren't treason, and for participating in a system that was legal, though terrible, you'd take their land?
It was treason. And yes. They profited off of the forced labor and torture of others. Those who were tortured are entitled to compensation.
That 21st century lens peering back can cause brain damage. Proof is with us today with the DEI nonsense.
CanyonAg77 said:
The Founding Fathers committed treason. But they won.
People who defended their state that voluntarily left an association of states did not commit treason.
Sapper Redux said:CanyonAg77 said:
The Founding Fathers committed treason. But they won.
People who defended their state that voluntarily left an association of states did not commit treason.
They absolutely committed treason. The Union was not a voluntary association once joined.
Quote:
They absolutely committed treason. The Union was not a voluntary association once joined.
CanyonAg77 said:Sapper Redux said:CanyonAg77 said:
The Founding Fathers committed treason. But they won.
People who defended their state that voluntarily left an association of states did not commit treason.
They absolutely committed treason. The Union was not a voluntary association once joined.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
BQ78 said:
I think Burns should have named this the American Hypocrisy not the American Revolution. He only looks at this with a 21st Century lens and for the most part white men are just awful as a race and gender. It seems okay when he sticks to history but there is way too much preaching and after just a third of the entire documentary is complete, it is already tiresome. We get it Ken, now just tell the story.
Sapper Redux said:p_bubel said:
You're just hell bent on ignoring what I'm saying aren't you?
You're hellbent on ignoring the work that's been done. Again, no one is arguing the Constitution or the Declaration or the Articles of Confederation came about because of the Iroquois, but it was absolutely an influence on people like Franklin and he consciously published reports on the Iroquois form of government.
Sapper Redux said:CanyonAg77 said:
The Founding Fathers committed treason. But they won.
People who defended their state that voluntarily left an association of states did not commit treason.
They absolutely committed treason. The Union was not a voluntary association once joined.
p_bubel said:
There's no shortage of writing on this topic, by the actual people that wrote the Declaration, Articles and eventual Constitution.
If they'll bend reality about something so minor and verifiably eye-rolling, how will they deal with more complicated issues?
Quote:
his writings use the Iroquois as a rhetorical device to push for colonial federation rather than providing detailed analyses of their political system.
BQ78 said:
He does and go to Cowpens while you are there..
japantiger said:p_bubel said:
There's no shortage of writing on this topic, by the actual people that wrote the Declaration, Articles and eventual Constitution.
If they'll bend reality about something so minor and verifiably eye-rolling, how will they deal with more complicated issues?
They'll lie. It's simple.
There were around 376k Americans that served in the Continental Army and Militias during the 8 years of war. Burns said 5k blacks fought in the war....he's spent significant amount of time across the first 2.5 episodes I have watched on this 0.013 of troops.
As for the Six Nations union, Franklin wrote of it from what I have found at most 3 times. However, his writings use the Iroquois as a rhetorical device to push for colonial federation rather than providing detailed analyses of their political system. In other words, he basically said "If Savages can form a union, why not the Colonies". That was it. He didn't espouse an Iroquois governance model.
Sapper Redux said:japantiger said:p_bubel said:
There's no shortage of writing on this topic, by the actual people that wrote the Declaration, Articles and eventual Constitution.
If they'll bend reality about something so minor and verifiably eye-rolling, how will they deal with more complicated issues?
They'll lie. It's simple.
There were around 376k Americans that served in the Continental Army and Militias during the 8 years of war. Burns said 5k blacks fought in the war....he's spent significant amount of time across the first 2.5 episodes I have watched on this 0.013 of troops.
As for the Six Nations union, Franklin wrote of it from what I have found at most 3 times. However, his writings use the Iroquois as a rhetorical device to push for colonial federation rather than providing detailed analyses of their political system. In other words, he basically said "If Savages can form a union, why not the Colonies". That was it. He didn't espouse an Iroquois governance model.
Again, 50 years of scholarly work on this. It goes far beyond that. But sure, just ignore what you want to ignore.
Also, those numbers mean 1.3% of the troops were black. 1 out of every 100 soldiers is African despite having no legal rights and the vast majority being literal property. That would be rather worthy of discussion, don't you think?
