Expansion Civilizations

[Ribannah]

i haven't been following this thread so i don't really know what the argument is about. but edinburgh was indeed designed on a grid system.
from the 'aboutscotland' website-->
'In this climate greater prosperity resulted in the expansion of Edinburgh to many times its original size. Now Edinburgh was alive with an enthusiasm to create a new city built on principals of aesthetics inherited from the Classical world of Greece and Rome. Throughout the 1700s thousands of classically conceived houses were built along roads and around squares which were all planned with an order and regularity which many saw as a return to a Golden Age of civilised urban living.'
this was edinburgh 'new town' after a fire destroyed much of the 'old town'

Well, that is many generations later, so if there is an influence over the ocean it is the other way.

 

[jar2574]

I'd be interested to see a source. It is certainly not true today.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569964/American_Revolution.html

Of course the USA isn't majority British today. But European whites still make up a large majority of the population. (Before you ask for a site, just check any census figures.)

Just one? Which to choose ...
Link."

The stated goal of the website has nothing to do with history:
"Our goal is to be a blessing to you by sharing Bible based articles, sermons and sermon outlines, book reviews and other helps for your Christian walk."

I'm sure you have other sources. And I'm sure I could muster more than you. But then you'd just allege that their has been a cover-up.

Nevertheless, thanks for the source. If you have some that are from respected historical journals, encyclopedia articles, or national newspapers then let me know.

How did all of these grid cities in Europe suddenly happen, do you think?
I did not present NYC as 'an example', but as the pinnacle in this development. Most USA towns are grid-based.

They didn't suddenly happen in Europe! They had been around since 2500 BC. They did not disappear and then reappear only after contact with the enlightened gridded Iroquois.

 

[Atropos]

I am quite aware that there are exceptions, thank you. What is your point?

The point is that you claimed that, prior to contact with the Iroquois Confederation, European states were formed by conquest or marriage. Consequently, states formed after contact with the Iroquois by means other than conquest or marriage (i.e. the US) were influenced by the Iroquois. If even a single counter-example exists, then this aspect of the case for Iroquois influence falls through.

Regarding Hobbes, to be honest, I don't view him as a very important influence on the US constitution. The most obvious borrowings (both verbal and substantive) in the text of the constitution are from Locke. Locke, as I said earlier (and if you have read his First Treatise, you will not deny this), was responding to Filmer, not Hobbes. The case of Hobbes, however, is interesting in its own regard, so if you have any evidence that he was indeed influenced (e.g. if catalogues of his books survive which show he was interested in the subject), I would be fascinated.

Let me clarify what I said earlier about this. You commented, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), that the interesting part of Hobbes is the "Leviathan" - mob rule - and that his diagnosis of this problem was the same as that of the Iroquois. In the first place, I see no evidence for a fear of mob rule in the Iroquois constitution. In the second place, fear of mob rule was endemic to English political debate at the time.

Nope, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that they have influenced Europe, not that they must have (although that too is true), and certainly not that they necessarily must have in one particular way.

"They influenced Europe" and "They must have influence Europe" are near-identical statements. And you did say that

Further, Descartes' generation was already influenced by the new world. Note that the way of decision making of the northern Amerinds (not just the Iroquois) was strongly based on logical reasoning.

The obvious implication is that Descartes' generation borrowed logical reasoning from the northern Amerinds.

I have already pointed out that the basic principles of the Iroquois Constitution differed from those of the American Constitution in fundamental respects.

So have I. In many other fundamental respects they are much the same. Again: influence is not the same as carbon copy.

Now we're getting to the meat of the argument. We agree that important differences existed (although you seem to want to confine these differences to sexism and racism). The questions are: 1. Were there similarities? 2. If so, was there a causal chain involved?

1. You have, thus far, cited only one specific similarity (if there are more, I would like to hear about them): Separation of powers. This exists in both constitutions, but not in the same form. The Iroquois constitution contains the following separated powers: 1. Five/ six groups of hereditary lords. 2. Subordinate officials, notably the war chiefs. 3. The men of each nation. 4. The women of each
nation. The lords check each other because no one tribe can make decisions; the war chiefs et al check them because of their duty to act on petitions and preserve decorum; and the men and women check them through the right of petition and deposition. This kind of system of checks on a hereditary ruling caste is not really very similar to the highly structured functional separation that prevails between judiciary, legislative and executive branches that prevails in the US constitution, but the US constitution is very similar to the British constitution of 1688 in this regard. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that the US constitution was influenced by the British constitution.

2. Thus far, you have mentioned only one specific example which tends to show causal dependence: a co-drafter of the Constitution who was familiar with that of the Iroquois. Given that all of the drafters were familiar with the British constitution, this point seems weak. By Occam's razor, it seems more reasonable to suppose that the vague similarities which exist are coincidental than to posit an elaborate borrowing project which the drafters somehow forgot to mention anywhere.

It doesn't need to follow. It happened

.

You are repeating your thesis, not supplementing it. Please offer evidence.

Perhaps you are saying that they were richer and more powerful than the settlers.

Nope. I meant the English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, and all the other European presences, both settlers and military. The Iroquois controlled the entire fur trade (that's what the wars with France were all about) and had the largest army with the most firepower until around the American revolution.

Are you arguing that the Iroquois could have held off all of the above in a war? Ok, no way to prove that that's wrong, but I think most historians might disagree. EDIT: I just read your later post. I no longer have any idea what you mean, since you have admitted that the Iroquois would have lost to the British in a war.

You say that it was easier for them to learn from the Iroquois than from their ancestors,

Yes. You see the same happening in Europe with the immigrants from Northern Africa. They are still in contact with the homeland, but they do not learn anything from it. Some are stuck in how the homeland was when they left, but most eventually accept the ways of their new home.

The analogy is not very exact. The settlers had their own settlements. The immigrants in, say, France do not. Moreover, since they mostly come from areas once controlled by France, they have already been heavily exposed to French culture.

Regarding differences between the US and Iroquois Constitution, you have not responded to any of the points I made regarding the different theories of government they imply.[.quote] Not sure what you refer to here. Obviously with such an onslaught of laughter I may have missed something.

Laughter may be the best weapon, but I am afraid that it is not a very good argument.

I had made a number of points about this, basically concerning the fact that the Iroquois constitution implies legitimation from the top down whereas the US one implies legitimation from the bottom up. You have not hitherto responded to them. This disappointed me, as I would be quite interested in seeing how you refute this.

I'm not an expert on city planning, but saying that the Iroquois must have influenced the settlers because both used grid patterns is a little like saying that France must have influenced the settlers because both used ploughs.

Not quite, because other peoples used plows as well, whereas the Iroquois were the only ones there to apply the grid. Nonetheless, yes such a statement would be entirely correct.

The Iroquois were not the only persons to apply the grid. It is a basic shape in geometry. Perhaps a better analogy might be "like saying that because both settlers and Russians used circles, the Russians must have influenced the settlers."

I did not say anything remotely like that.

Perhaps you could explain this to me, then:

The influence was a general one, where houses simply had more stories than in the old world, more than one family lived in these houses on separate floors, and then still more.

Where the Iroquois lived, the largest group of Settlers were Dutch. Danes and Swedes also settled in the area (the Swedes until they were removed by the Dutch). Only much later the English became the largest group.

This isn't strictly relevant anyway, because the question is the relative weght of European (not just British) influences vs. Iroquois influences. But I think you might be confused by the fact that many people called "dutch" in the registries were German. It was a corruption of deutsch. (E.g. Dutch County.)

I'm sure they didn't, especially since they (the Settlers) made a mess of it, but it happened nonetheless.

Again, you are restating your thesis, not providing evidence. Please cite documents showing that specific colonial architects were aware of and relied on Iroquois designs.

Edit: Argh, crossposted.

 

[Atropos]

By the way, I just read the article you posted. Very interesting. It makes quite a persuasive case for the idea that the Iroquois persistently attempted to persuade the colonists to form a confederation. Unfortunately, the author doesn't actually show any specific features of the Iroquois manner of unity adopted by the colonists.

By the way, you may remember that this argument began with the question of the suitability of the Iroquois for cIV. Your position seems to be that, because the Iroquois (in your view) exerted an important influence on the nascent US, they deserve to be included among the 23 greatest peoples of all time. This seems to me to be a rather...American point of view, to say the least.

Out of curiosity, I just ran a Google search for city grids, and came up with this:

The earliest civilization, in Mesopotamia, consisted of small city-states, unified by Sargon of Akkadia after 1500 years of urban life. In Egypt the process was reversed; the first great city, Memphis, was founded after unification, about a thousand years after urbanization had struck Mesopotamia and hundreds of years before Sargon. About the time of Sargon a pair of great cities were built on the Indus River in what is now Pakistan, each laid out in the now familiar pattern of a rectangular grid. Early in the second millennium bce, cities were also built at Knossos in Crete and in China by the earliest emperors. In the Americas, large cities did not appear until at least the first millennium bce.

The citation is fromhere

 

[Ribannah]

By the way, you may remember that this argument began with the question of the suitability of the Iroquois for cIV. Your position seems to be that, because the Iroquois (in your view) exerted an important influence on the nascent US, they deserve to be included among the 23 greatest peoples of all time. This seems to me to be a rather...American point of view, to say the least.

It does indeed. Fortunately, that is not my position at all. It really may be more efficient, discussionwise, to let me state my own opinions instead of formulating them for me. But that's just a suggestion.

 

[Atropos]

It really may be more efficient, discussionwise, to let me state my own opinions instead of formulating them for me.

I apologize if I misunderstood your position. What is it?

 

[Ribannah]

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569964/American_Revolution.html

Thanks for the link. It clearly refutes your statement that the vast majority of the settlers was British.

Of course the USA isn't majority British today. But European whites still make up a large majority of the population. (Before you ask for a site, just check any census figures.)

Yes, but you are mispresenting statements again. You claimed them to be British, I was the one who pointed out other European groups.

Nevertheless, thanks for the source. If you have some that are from respected historical journals, encyclopedia articles, or national newspapers then let me know.

Well, if you want academic proof (while you don't supply any yourself), that's alright, but then you will have to pay me for my time. Meanwhile, you could read something by the several authors I have already mentioned.

 

[Ribannah]

I apologize if I misunderstood your position. What is it?

My position is that the Iroquois deserve to be included because they have contributed much to human civilization, in all aspects relevant to the game.

 

[Ribannah]

Out of curiosity, I just ran a Google search for city grids, and came up with this:

The earliest civilization, in Mesopotamia, consisted of small city-states, unified by Sargon of Akkadia after 1500 years of urban life. In Egypt the process was reversed; the first great city, Memphis, was founded after unification, about a thousand years after urbanization had struck Mesopotamia and hundreds of years before Sargon. About the time of Sargon a pair of great cities were built on the Indus River in what is now Pakistan, each laid out in the now familiar pattern of a rectangular grid. Early in the second millennium bce, cities were also built at Knossos in Crete and in China by the earliest emperors. In the Americas, large cities did not appear until at least the first millennium bce.

The citation is fromhere

Yes, I know. Many things get invented over and over again. Did you know that Mesopotamia already had a form of social security?

 

[Atropos]

My position is that the Iroquois deserve to be included because they have contributed much to human civilization, in all aspects relevant to the game.

Would you share some of them with us (apart from their putative influence on the Americans?)

 

[Atropos]

Yes, I know. Many things get invented over and over again. Did you know that Mesopotamia already had a form of social security?

True. But, given that many things do get invented independently, is there any reason to suppose that nineteenth-century American/ European grid patterns were borrowed from the Iroquois, any more than they were borrowed from Sumer?

 

[jar2574]

Thanks for the link. It clearly refutes your statement that the vast majority of the settlers was British.

No it does not. It said that the "English" were a minority, not the "British."

It said that 30 percent of the population was Scot, German, or Irish. Those were the major non-English immigrant groups. Scots and Irish are British.

Slaves should not be considered "settlers."

I'm not surprised that you misinterpreted the article.

Yes, but you are mispresenting statements again. You claimed them to be British, I was the one who pointed out other European groups.

I never claimed that the Dutch or Swedes or anyone else were British. I claimed that most settlers at the formation of the USA were of British descent, and that Britain was a larger influence than the Iroquois.

Pointing out that other Europeans were in America did nothing to further your claim that people of European descent were absorbed into the native culture. I really have no idea where you're going with that.

Well, if you want academic proof (while you don't supply any yourself), that's alright, but then you will have to pay me for my time. Meanwhile, you could read something by the several authors I have already mentioned.

For the most extensive record regarding the creation of the US Constitution and court decisions both before and after the Constitution go here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

You'll be pleased to note the collection of European philosophers, court decisions both before and after the Revolution reflecting the British common law system, and not a single darn Iroquois source.

You can get the background on almost all parts of the US Constitition. Click on any part to get an extensive list of the sources inspiring it. You will reject my extensive sources as part of the cover-up, I'm sure. But you will not be able to say I never offered a few "academic sources".

This is the University of Chicago website, and the editors are professors at the University of Chicago School of Law. Chicago is a very well respected law school.

You on the other hand, did not cite specific sources outside of a speech made in 1987, but rather said "read X's work" or "read about" so and so. Cite another piece of work outside of the Iroqouis Constition and I'll read it.

I've read some of Paine's work, and "about" Franklin and Jefferson and never encountered anything you're proposing.

To summarize, I wouldn't pay you 5 cents an hour, since the only source you offered come from a speech given in 1987 found on a website dedicated to Biblical living. And as another poster pointed out, the speech did not proove that Americans were assimilating into the Iroquois.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The weight of evidence is clearly against you. The Americans were not absorbed into the Iroquois culture. They were not influenced to the degree you believe.

But I don't expect all this evidence to change your mind, because it's been there all along and you have failed to read it or understand it.

 

[jar2574]

True. But, given that many things do get invented independently, is there any reason to suppose that nineteenth-century American/ European grid patterns were borrowed from the Iroquois, any more than they were borrowed from Sumer?

No. There is no reason. The assumption would be illogical. You've hit the nail on the head.

Furthermore, since some settlers came from grid cities, to assume that they had to borrow from the Iroqouis to implement the idea would just be ignorant.

 

[Depravo]

I find it hard to keep tabs on every strand of this fascinating if one-sided discussion. Let's home in on the supposed Iroquois inspiration for grid cities.

Given the contemporary fad for classical purity, the will of the young US to reinvent itself alongside classical lines and presented with an exploding urban population in need of organisation it's hardly surprising a grid pattern, a meeting of function and symmetry to delight both the scholar and taxman, got favour.

Even restraining ourselves to England, generally and rightly accepted as the colonists' main cultural influence, the period where the classical model was at its lowest ebb and when urbanism was almost extinct, we find the grid model.

London may not be the obvious grid city but that's how it was founded in 47 and refounded in the 880s.



Winchester...



Lydford, Devon, like Southhampton a Saxon foundation. A rudimentary grid is clearly visible north of the castle despite the town's headland position.

http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/12/plan.jpg

Medieval Oxford, another place with no classical antecedent. Major streets of the Saxon foundation and the twelfth-century extension marked out in red and purple. Deviations from the grid are to conform with features of the land, like rivers.



No, our ancestors weren't ******ed and common sense is a far better explanation for this pattern than the post-seventeenth century influence of a faraway tribe.

 

[Ribannah]

The point is that you claimed that, prior to contact with the Iroquois Confederation, European states were formed by conquest or marriage. Consequently, states formed after contact with the Iroquois by means other than conquest or marriage (i.e. the US) were influenced by the Iroquois. If even a single counter-example exists, then this aspect of the case for Iroquois influence falls through.

Logic doesn't work that way. Influence can come from more than one source, or switch sources between cases even. One source does not disprove another.

Regarding Hobbes, to be honest, I don't view him as a very important influence on the US constitution.

Well, that makes sense, with other philosophers in between. It took a number of steps with nobody standing out as the sole person to make the difference. Thomas More is another who deserves mention.

Let me clarify what I said earlier about this. You commented, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), that the interesting part of Hobbes is the "Leviathan" - mob rule - and that his diagnosis of this problem was the same as that of the Iroquois. In the first place, I see no evidence for a fear of mob rule in the Iroquois constitution. In the second place, fear of mob rule was endemic to English political debate at the time.

The central issue, as I see it, is the analysis that a strong state is needed to provide common protection. The mob that the Iroquois feared were the neighbouring tribes. The strong state, they shaped differently than Hobbes wanted.

"They influenced Europe" and "They must have influence Europe" are near-identical statements.

They are quite different. An influence can come about without it being inevitable, even purely by chance. Not that it was the case here, but it calls for a different argumentation altogether if must-have were the issue.

The obvious implication is that Descartes' generation borrowed logical reasoning from the northern Amerinds.

That is too simplistic, since there are of course other influences as well.

You have, thus far, cited only one specific similarity (if there are more, I would like to hear about them): Separation of powers.

There are quite a few more indeed, pertaining to the rights of the individual. Probably democracy was mentioned somewhere pages back.

the US constitution is very similar to the British constitution of 1688 in this regard. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that the US constitution was influenced by the British constitution.

By 1688, more than 150 years of Iroquois influence on Europe had already passed.

Thus far, you have mentioned only one specific example which tends to show causal dependence: a co-drafter of the Constitution who was familiar with that of the Iroquois.

I have also mentioned Franklin and Jefferson, and a half dozen of (other) philosophers and historians.
But a main connection, if you want specifics, was the Albany conference.

Are you arguing that the Iroquois could have held off all of the above in a war?

No, just any of the above. They might have been able to win against all of them, too, but that is beside my point. What they did was much better still, they played the several European tribes against each other.

I no longer have any idea what you mean, since you have admitted that the Iroquois would have lost to the British in a war.

In Britain. Not on their own turf.

The analogy is not very exact. The settlers had their own settlements. The immigrants in, say, France do not.

They do. They didn't build them, but for a good part they live in separate settlements.

Moreover, since they mostly come from areas once controlled by France, they have already been heavily exposed to French culture.

In France, maybe, but the same does not hold for eg The Netherlands.

I had made a number of points about this, basically concerning the fact that the Iroquois constitution implies legitimation from the top down whereas the US one implies legitimation from the bottom up. You have not hitherto responded to them.

Well, it's not true. Legitimation for the Iroquois also comes from the bottom, the clans (a factor often overlooked).

The Iroquois were not the only persons to apply the grid. It is a basic shape in geometry. Perhaps a better analogy might be "like saying that because both settlers and Russians used circles, the Russians must have influenced the settlers."

The Russians were among the settlers, so there is no analogy. More importantly though, where are the circles?

I think you might be confused by the fact that many people called "dutch" in the registries were German. It was a corruption of deutsch. (E.g. Dutch County.)

I know about this, but no, that's not it. The Dutch influence and especially their close relationship with the Iroquois is one of the most forgotten chapters of this part of history.

 

[harha]

Algonquins why not! They have more common than only language they have more cultural relations such as their believes (example great spirit Manitou). They are as good as sioux or iroques wich are also common native groups. You talk about siouxes but you don't talk about dakotas or tetons etc...
Ok problem is that native indians don't have common government. They are too separated in groups of tribes. But same problem has mayas, celts or vikings. You can belief that algonquins are as good as they in this mention.

Major idea of this was that in this game you take common civilization name as algonquin and then cities have names of these tribes of general group of native indians (Delaware, Ottawa, ...) such as barbarian cities have. And then they gain towns around them as indian villages. Leader will be some great leader of one of these tribes (example Powhatan or Pontiac) and unique unit is brave warriors. With tomahawks (from algonquin language) they are generated from axemen.

How sounds to take pueblas or zunis as civilization? Capital will be Pueblo Bonito/Cibola. I don't know about their leaders but how sounds to take unique unit as headhunters (warrior or archer)?

 

[Ribannah]

The weight of evidence is clearly against you. The Americans were not absorbed into the Iroquois culture.

Once again: I have never claimed this. I am also not bound to provide proof of a position that is not mine but a mere caricature.

@Depravo: the existence of a number relatively straight lines or even some perfect rectangles does not make a city a grid city. These examples are far, far away from qualifying. If you look closely you can find all kinds of shapes.

 

[jar2574]

Logic doesn't work that way. Influence can come from more than one source, or switch sources between cases even. One source does not disprove another... An influence can come about without it being inevitable, even purely by chance. Not that it was the case here, but it calls for a different argumentation altogether if must-have were the issue.

You claimed assimilation, not mere influence. Assimilation MUST include great deals of influence.

Now you admit that you cannot prove influence in any particular area, making your claim of assimilation even more preposterous.

The central issue, as I see it, is the analysis that a strong state is needed to provide common protection. The mob that the Iroquois feared were the neighbouring tribes. The strong state, they shaped differently than Hobbes wanted.

Hobbes feared the mob within, not without, because he lived through the English Civi Wars. The Iroquois fears of neighboring tribes were fundamentally different than the worries that inspired the Leviathon.

 

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by jar2574
The weight of evidence is clearly against you. The Americans were not absorbed into the Iroquois culture.

Once again: I have never claimed this. I am also not bound to provide proof of a position that is not mine.

Oh really? Let me refresh your faulty memory:

It is rather the other way around: the settlers were assimilated by the Iroquois (other things, like women's rights, were ignored, unfortunately). The USA constitution, government and legal system, their city planning, combined-troops warfare, and many other things were learned from the Iroquois.

To assimilate means: "To absorb (immigrants or a culturally distinct group) into the prevailing culture."

Perhaps when you said "assimilate" you did not mean assimilate.

Perhaps when you said that the Americans "learned" things from the natives you did not mean that they must have been influenced.

Or perhaps you're only just now realizing that what you said earlier is indefensible.

 

[Depravo]

@Depravo: the existence of a number relatively straight lines or even some perfect rectangles does not make a city a grid city. These examples are far, far away from qualifying. If you look closely you can find all kinds of shapes.

That was to demonstrate that the grid principle if not a rigid grid pattern is a universal theme. Perhaps if you could show me a plan of a large Iroquois settlement organised as a perfect grid...

It's all self-indulgent garnish to the point I made in the second paragraph.

Given the contemporary fad for classical purity, the will of the young US to reinvent itself alongside classical lines and presented with an exploding urban population in need of organisation it's hardly surprising a grid pattern, a meeting of function and symmetry to delight both the scholar and taxman, got favour.