Native Americans Perfect Government

[Green Arrow]

Churchill was a bit of a $#@!, but he was a very pro-English $#@! and when you read his biographies you don't see him as a progressive tool that most history books steer you towards, but as an Englishman.

I actually own Churchill's Second World War series, the A History of the English Speaking Peoples series, and "Taken From the Diaries of Lord Moran," all in their original publishing editions. That was probably one of the best treasure finds I ever made.

[Guerilla]

@Mister D

You're not going to like what I have to say but we're both wrong.

First, to lay the groundwork. I did some research into this subject and found several accounts where English settlers based organisations in the New World around that of natives. Beginning with John Smith, whom I quite forgot about--apologies there, who indeed adapted several of their best practices. We certainly did understand how to colonise properly where there were locals. We would use carrot stick approach to gain assistance and then adapt our lifestyles to the climate, etcetera.

Certainly we all know of their agricultural practices which the early colonials took on so that they didn't starve to death, but also medicines and the like and tribal organisation and delegation of duties. Thus Virginia colonies until such time as a governor was appointed was established similar to that of the Pamunkey (Pamunky? spellcheck me someone) tribes.

I officially concede the point to @Guerilla, well done, sir, that Benjamin Franklin did indeed acknowledge that his concepts for the American configuration did come from the Iroquois. He was actually in contact and association with Canassatego who was the one who suggested the Iroquois model of government over that of Roman society or Greek, as he was well read and understood them both. Franklin and he corresponded several times and Franklin, being Franklin, was the one who pushed his brethren to adapt this model having found it to have great merit.

Fascinating and well done, Guerilla, well done. You've taught me something that I did not know before and that is a rare thing. I've got a good book out of it and I'm quite content.

Well thank you, good sir. I'm glad I could contribute meaningfully.

Ya I think the interaction between settlers and natives is something that is very important. The settlers needed native help early on, meaning they would've been familiar with them and I think at least a portion would've even respected them for their knowledge. Ben Franklin had been printing Indian Treaties for people to read, and there were other confederacies besides the Iroquois, like the Powhatan, that colonists were familiar with, and all of this would've influenced the general colonist population.

Advocates of native ways such as Franklin and Jefferson would definitely have steered any conversations or actions that had to do with the founding of the nation, if only to counterbalance people like Hamilton and Adams. I think it's important to remember that only about a third of colonists were even revolutionary, and some of that was still relatively authoritarian. I think the revolution needed all the help it could get, and native influence was ample, both with the founders and the general population. So I see a natural mixture of the two identities into the principles and ideas of the founding of America and what it was supposed to look like when we consider the Articles as well as the constitution.

[Guerilla]

That is not true. Many American Indian tribes died off from over fishing for example. This fetish to return to the stone age is silly and dangerous.

Humans yearn to advance.

Ya there is evidence to suggest the Americas were becoming overpopulated, and some ecosystems were being destroyed. We shouldn't go back to the stone age, technologically, but in other ways we can learn from them. As we can see, native Americans were better at government than us.

Modernity has shown that humans don't like to advance, since our morals suck, traditions are falling apart, economies are run illogically and for short term gain (i.e. planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity, suppression of tech) wars are done for acquisition of wealth or territory or power. What have we advanced besides knowledge?

"I do not think the measure of a civilization is how tall it's buildings of concrete are, but rather how well it's people have learned to relate to their environment and fellow man."

If anything, our advances in technology have shown we haven't advanced at all, and even destroy the civilizations that are more advanced than us. Imagine that.

[Peter1469]

Ya there is evidence to suggest the Americas were becoming overpopulated, and some ecosystems were being destroyed. We shouldn't go back to the stone age, technologically, but in other ways we can learn from them. As we can see, native Americans were better at government than us.

Modernity has shown that humans don't like to advance, since our morals suck, traditions are falling apart, economies are run illogically and for short term gain (i.e. planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity, suppression of tech) wars are done for acquisition of wealth or territory or power. What have we advanced besides knowledge?

"I do not think the measure of a civilization is how tall it's buildings of concrete are, but rather how well it's people have learned to relate to their environment and fellow man."

If anything, our advances in technology have shown we haven't advanced at all, and even destroy the civilizations that are more advanced than us. Imagine that.

Good post, although I would say that it was not overpopulation, but rather over fishing that destroyed some Native American fisheries.

[midcan5]

I didn't have time to read entire thread but I do find it interesting how we sometimes imagine a past that never was. I doubt any of us would want to live in the conditions of the native Americans, but that said I'm sure there was lots of good and lots of bad about living then. Governance is another matter though given the complexity of our modern times. This book gets lots of praise and lots of the other stuff, it is on my list of reads if I live to 150.

"...In the preface Mr. Turner remarks how when he gave a reading of his work at Amherst, a woman had asked him whether he was aware that he was offering poetry as history. Ultimately he would concur. He admits that his central problem was: "how to write on a subject whose scope was far beyond my competence". Indeed, the conquest of North America by Europeans was and is a rich and complex process, of which numerous volumes have been written. However, Mr. Turner manages to distill the essence of that process by stating "...it is the story of a civilization that had substituted history for myth as way of understanding life." Throughout the book he manages to illustrate that substitutive process whereby European civilization had systematically extinguished not only the peoples of a continent but also a way of comprehending the world and humanity's place in it. Also, and importantly, he succeeds in not over-sentimentalizing Native American culture. Instead of painting a portrait of the noble savage leading an Edenic existence, he chooses to show how brutal Native American life could be, especially in response to European infringements. We read of cannibalism, seasonal starvation, Spanish heads on stakes, etc. This is not just another book about the tragedy of how our nation was settled, it is more a critique of the Western mind and the psychopathology of its historical imperative, an imperative which continues to carry us, now as a species, toward an abyss from which we may never extract ourselves. And finally, Mr. Turner is such an eloquent and effective writer, that one is captivated by nearly each sentence...." from review link below

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Geograp...=books&ie=UTF8