Which Culture is Superior ? Middle Eastern or Western?

[The Last Conformist]

Disclaimer: I do not think any race is supreme to another race. I for one think Nelson Mandela, Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, Kofi Annam, Deng Xiaoping, Mahatma Ghandi and several others are great leaders, and I met several good people from many cultures.

I'll have my surprise at the inclusion of Deng Xiaoping on that list noted.

 

[plarq]

I agree,TLC,highly doubtful character he is.

 

[The Last Conformist]

With Closed borders I mean the following:

An end to forced marriages or bringing in foreign spouses through arranged marriages
An end to the political privileges of Islamist Priests
An oath to the Constitution of the Western Country, legally binding
A shariah clause, outlawing the imposition or introduction of the laws for a lifetime
Background checks outlawing the immigration of certain Islamist political activists (they can go to Sudan or Iran, and be funded and "protected" there, we can even pay these countries to receive them)

The list goes on. The Mission is to snuff out political islam as a globally expansive movement and contain that movement to the Middle East.

IOW, with closed borders you mean not closed borders, but stronger immigration controls, a ban on the shariah (is there any Western country that affords the shariah any legal status now?), and mandatory oaths to the consitution (would you require the same of inborn Westerners?).

Requiring an oath on the constitution would be an empty symbol, and one of all the wrong things; it implies the law applies to them only by their consent.

I don't know what "political privileges" of Muslim clerics you're refering to.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I also voted for both cultures are of equal worth.
And regarding historical revisionism, that can obviously go both ways. Up here in the cold North you can find approbed books for students that tries to tell us that the ancient Greeks invented both democracy and philosophy.
I would also like to refer to the Black Athena controversy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I also voted for both cultures are of equal worth.
And regarding historical revisionism, that can obviously go both ways. Up here in the cold North you can find approbed books for students that tries to tell us that the ancient Greeks invented both democracy and philosophy.

For some reason have this suspicion that your disagreement wrt democracy is gonna be definitional. What's the real story, as you see it?

 

[Richard Cribb]

For some reason have this suspicion that your disagreement wrt democracy is gonna be definitional. What's the real story, as you see it?

For some reason have this suspicion that your disagreement wrt democracy is gonna be definitional. What's the real story, as you see it?

I was really thinking of hoard this information to the PM-based history quiz I am about to make, but OK, since you ask.
First of all, I don't know if it is so definitional really, I think my perception of democracy here is pretty mainstream, but that you can form your own opinion about. Here is a short survey, sorry if it is a bit messy and long, it is based on some lectures, and I have the handwriting worthy of any medical doctor...

In my country, it is not unusual, when you look up in a conversation encyclopedia on democracy to read that itcame from the Greek polises from about 500BC.

However, already from Sumer we know stories about men gathering in free assemblies for voting. The political power in those ancient Sumerian cities situated at the banks of Eufrat is supposed to been in the hands of a council of elders, but acording to some historians probably sharing it with a people's assembly. A sort of primitive democracy really.Now this is very difficult to assert the truth of, of course, and considering that a certain Saddam Hussein claims to descend form the Sumerians it is also highly controversial politically and not exactly devoid of irony.For more on this, consult Thomas Noble: "Western Civilization.The Continuing Experiment."(I was going to post some book recommendations in privatehudson's thread in history forum, but for some reason I didn't. Watch out for a huge bump one of these days!).

And to quote Liverni: "What could shrink the Western culture arrogance more than the revealing that the Sumerians established the first government by the people along the neither banks of Eufrat at the beginning of the second millenium before BC?"(My translation).
But of course, anyway you can say that the Athenian system was more democratic. Just think of the amazing fact that Lysistrata was performed during the Peloponnesian War.

OK, so let's go to the first humane democracy then.
And then we will arrive in today's Afghanistan, Pakistan and India where said form of rule developed sometime around between 600 and 200 BC. Check for instance the accounts of Arrianus in his The Conquests of Aleksander where he tells about "free and independent" states everywhere. An example here is the independent city of Nysa between today's Afghanistan and Pakistan ruled by president Aculphis and a council of 300.Or consider king Chandragupta Maurya, who came to power in the North Indian capital Patna in 321 BC. His advisor was Kautilya, who wrote a monumental treatise on political philosophy, Arthahastra("the wealth of science").Here he discusses among other topics the duties of kings and ministers, trade, lawa, women's rights, marriage and divorce taxation, and diplomacy. it is worth to point out that this great work is finished about the same time as Aristotle's Ta Politika and that it used to be pretty well known also among the intellectuals in Europe.

Back to Patna. Just like Aristotle, Kautilya discusses both what is the best form of rule in theory and in reality. Patna had a city council elected by the people.30 representatives were elected, and diversed into 6 comitees which took care of e.g craftsmen, travelers, tax questions concerning deaths and births, and supervision of industrial production. The whole body of the town council was responsible for public buildings, parks and water supplies. Publicly elected panchayatas (councils of five) handled juridical questions.
Also note that while the Athenian democracy only included about ten percent of the whole population, women, slaves and methoics were excluded Aristotle himself didn't have citizen's rights!), there is no documentation of any such limits in India. And while the king himself, was not chosen, but had to swear a binding oath to the people that should not supress them.
Democracy also continued for quite a long time.One source,the book Nitisara written by Shukracharya about 900 AD refers that the public opinion is mightier than the king. And while admittedly the castless were kept out, it can also report about at least one women elected in a panchayat.You can find more information about Indian democracy from a real expert on the topic, professor Steve Muhlberger at Nipissing University: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/indiadem.htm

And while the Sumerians were earlier and the Indians more humane, it is not correct to say that our current form of rule is so Greek-based either.

The Enlightenment were not influenced by ancient Greece in their political thinking, speaking about for instance USA, their project was inded to create a new system without worshipping the past..One of those who had most impact on the US Constitution,James Wilson, pointed out the Greek and Roman people's lack of understanding for the "real principles behind original, equal and emotional freedom" and did not want to "search in history for principles and systems for pure freedom."George Washington seems to have been of the same opinion. The Roman republic, on the other hand, had a certain influence, just consider Capitol and the Senate, but a more important influence for the American democratic system was in fact the Iroquis confederation.
No I will just haste to add that no culture in my opinion owns the copyright to democracy, but it is also in my humble opinion both tendentious and ignorant to claim that this political system is a unique Greek and Western invention.
It makes far more sense to regard modern democracy as a part of the growth of the national state in the 19th century.
Regarding India, I think it is fair to say that nothing harmed democracy more than "Western influence", I am refering to British colonization here, of course.

 

[Rambuchan]

@ luceafarul: You are the equivalent of a history porn star . Well the comments at least . You are so on the money with what you have said. I can't reply in full detail right now (got a 1 year old jumping on me) but . Be sure to PM with any quizzes you are running please .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The Enlightenment were not influenced by ancient Greece in their political thinking,

It would have been pretty difficult to find an educated European at that time who wasnt profoundly influenced by ancient Greek thought. I dont think you could even call yourself educated unless you were thoroughly familiar with the Greek classic literature.

speaking about for instance USA, their project was inded to create a new system without worshipping the past..One of those who had most impact on the US Constitution,James Wilson, pointed out the Greek and Roman people's lack of understanding for the "real principles behind original, equal and emotional freedom" and did not want to "search in history for principles and systems for pure freedom."George Washington seems to have been of the same opinion. The Roman republic, on the other hand, had a certain influence, just consider Capitol and the Senate, but a more important influence for the American democratic system was in fact the Iroquis confederation.

This part is really almost laughable, sorry lucea. 17th and 18th century Europeans, at the height of Western hubris, rejecting Greek and Roman influence, and instead basing their system of government on the Iroquois? A group of people they barely saw as human, and treated like vermin?

 

[Rambuchan]

Originally Posted by luceafarul:"The Enlightenment were not influenced by ancient Greece in their political thinking,"

I fear my dear fellow that you have misquoted luceafarul . His full sentence reads:

"The Enlightenment were not influenced by ancient Greece in their political thinking, speaking about for instance USA, their project was inded to create a new system without worshipping the past."

There was indeed a distinct 'cultural' difference between America and Europe during the C18th, of course eventually leading to its departure from British parliamentary rule and all that it stood for. The Americans prefered a forward looking emphasis - politically, culturally and philosophically. They refused to use Latin in as widespread a fashion (like in legal circles), chose to promote 'the legend' (not saying it's fictitious here) of the founding forefathers and their 'bill of rights', instead of tracing political identity back to Greece, their architecture was less reminiscent of classical Greek and the very experience of settling the west created an altogether new sense of identity, adventure, independence and freedom, especially from the dusty European heritage which many of them were running away or in exile from.

In this sense, and luceafarul has been very insightful in pointing it out, 'the American-Western cultural project' can be seen to have departed from 'the European-Western cultural project', perhaps sometime in the early C17th, on some pretty core fundamentals, thereby denouncing the notion of a grandly unifying Western Cultural Identity.

You could take this much further, if you think of all the other ideological differences there have been to split the European-Western cultural project. (And of course this can be extended to any culture you wish to choose ).

This part is really almost laughable, sorry lucea. 17th and 18th century Europeans, at the height of Western hubris, rejecting Greek and Roman influence, and instead basing their system of government on the Iroquois?

Gotta pull you up on this one too . Yes, the early European seetlers of America were faced with an Iroquis Confederacy which demonstrated an egalitarian organisation of states (often known in English history as the Five Indian Nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca - this later expanded considerably) which was Democratic in the following way:

The Grand Council was empowered to treat with foreign nations and peoples and to settle disputes among the Five Nations. The Iroquois Confederacy is divided into houses or, in their own parlance, "brotherhoods." The elder brothers are the Mohawks and Senecas. The younger brothers are the Oneidas, Cayugas, and, since 1722, the Tuscaroras. The Onondagas are known as the "Firekeepers." The Senecas and Mohawks confer as a "house," and the Cayugas, Oneidas, and Tuscaroras confer in a separate caucus, in a structure similar to that found in upper and lower houses in some parliamentary systems. Issues that arise before the council are considered first by the Mohawk and Seneca "side," then by the Cayugas, Oneidas, and Tuscaroras in council. If these two "sides" are unable to reach agreement, the matter is sent to the Onondagas, who then cast the deciding vote. If the two "sides" reach agreement, the Onondagas have no veto power and must confirm the decision. In each of their deliberations there is an effort to reach unanimity, but when unanimity is impossible to achieve a vote is taken to determine the sense of the assembly. If the measure is favored by a significant majority, a second vote is taken at which those who dissented are expected to express solidarity with the others.

[Houghton Miflin, Encyclopedia of American Indians. Online version is here:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_017500_iroquoisconf.htm]

There are records and reports in English history dating back to the 16th century and many American Indians say that the system was in existence since around 800-900BC. This is difficult to prove however because the Iroquois used an oral history tradition. It's worth mentioning that many anthropologists claim oral history to be far more accurate due to its constant memorisation techniques, whereas literary traditions tend to warp information from one edition and author to the other. Of course I therefore cannot provide any written proof to this but would need an Iroquois historian to tell you - and mine's just popped to the shop for some smokes but check the link, there's plenty there.

Of course these Iroquois histories don't get told that often. It doesn't help in killing them off if you go about telling everyone what clever governments they had devised. Much better to go for the barefoot, savage with a stone axe. Much easier to kill or imprison someone who you don't know lives in a democracy. Some things never change eh? Man I love my signature all the more now !

 

[The Last Conformist]

First of all, I don't know if it is so definitional really,

I was rather expecting the "ancient Athens wasn't democratic on account of excluding women, slaves, and metics" line.

(You may, tangentially, remember that I've stated more than once that I think it's unfortunate that the word "democracy" ever got applied to modern representative forms of government.)

I think my perception of democracy here is pretty mainstream, but that you can form your own opinion about. Here is a short survey, sorry if it is a bit messy and long, it is based on some lectures, and I have the handwriting worthy of any medical doctor...

In my country, it is not unusual, when you look up in a conversation encyclopedia on democracy to read that itcame from the Greek polises from about 500BC.

However, already from Sumer we know stories about men gathering in free assemblies for voting. The political power in those ancient Sumerian cities situated at the banks of Eufrat is supposed to been in the hands of a council of elders, but acording to some historians probably sharing it with a people's assembly. A sort of primitive democracy really.Now this is very difficult to assert the truth of, of course, and considering that a certain Saddam Hussein claims to descend form the Sumerians it is also highly controversial politically and not exactly devoid of irony.For more on this, consult Thomas Noble: "Western Civilization.The Continuing Experiment."

Early Sumerian cities are more usually characterized as theocracies. I don't claim to be an expert on Sumerian political history, but what you say does not square well with what I've read on it.

And to quote Liverni: "What could shrink the Western culture arrogance more than the revealing that the Sumerians established the first government by the people along the neither banks of Eufrat at the beginning of the second millenium before BC?"(My translation).

I can think of many reasons that Westerners should avoid cultural arrogance, but the possibility that the Sumerians had democratc institutions isn't among them.

But of course, anyway you can say that the Athenian system was more democratic. Just think of the amazing fact that Lysistrata was performed during the Peloponnesian War.

In a society that thought ostracism a good thing. Dahl (Democracy and its critics, 1989) has a couple things to say about Athenian democracy's lack of respect for freedom of speech.
[/quote]
OK, so let's go to the first humane democracy then.
And then we will arrive in today's Afghanistan, Pakistan and India where said form of rule developed sometime around between 600 and 200 BC. Check for instance the accounts of Arrianus in his The Conquests of Aleksander where he tells about "free and independent" states everywhere. An example here is the independent city of Nysa between today's Afghanistan and Pakistan ruled by president Aculphis and a council of 300.[/quote]
I wouldn't expect an ancient Greek author to be thinking of democracy when refering to "free and independent" states, nor does a reigning council of 300 sound suggestive of democracy. I suppose I should find a copy of Arrian and check exactly what he says ...

Or consider king Chandragupta Maurya, who came to power in the North Indian capital Patna in 321 BC. His advisor was Kautilya, who wrote a monumental treatise on political philosophy, Arthahastra("the wealth of science").Here he discusses among other topics the duties of kings and ministers, trade, lawa, women's rights, marriage and divorce taxation, and diplomacy. it is worth to point out that this great work is finished about the same time as Aristotle's Ta Politika and that it used to be pretty well known also among the intellectuals in Europe.

You're not asserting the Mauryan Empire was democratic, are you?

Back to Patna. Just like Aristotle, Kautilya discusses both what is the best form of rule in theory and in reality. Patna had a city council elected by the people.30 representatives were elected, and diversed into 6 comitees which took care of e.g craftsmen, travelers, tax questions concerning deaths and births, and supervision of industrial production. The whole body of the town council was responsible for public buildings, parks and water supplies. Publicly elected panchayatas (councils of five) handled juridical questions.
Also note that while the Athenian democracy only included about ten percent of the whole population, women, slaves and methoics were excluded Aristotle himself didn't have citizen's rights!), there is no documentation of any such limits in India. And while the king himself, was not chosen, but had to swear a binding oath to the people that should not supress them.
Democracy also continued for quite a long time.One source,the book Nitisara written by Shukracharya about 900 AD refers that the public opinion is mightier than the king. And while admittedly the castless were kept out, it can also report about at least one women elected in a panchayat.You can find more information about Indian democracy from a real expert on the topic, professor Steve Muhlberger at Nipissing University: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/indiadem.htm

This is certainly interesting. Unfortunately, my background knowledge is close to nil.

And while the Sumerians were earlier and the Indians more humane,

It's not clear what you're basing the judgement of humaneness on.

[snip]

No I will just haste to add that no culture in my opinion owns the copyright to democracy, but it is also in my humble opinion both tendentious and ignorant to claim that this political system is a unique Greek and Western invention.

Well, that something should be a unique Greek invention and a Western one is patently self-contradictory. I do not think we need worry whether a claim is tendentious and or ignorant if it's necessarily false.

It makes far more sense to regard modern democracy as a part of the growth of the national state in the 19th century.

You won't see disagree with that. I've already noted I think it is unfortunate it is given the same label as ancient Athenian demokratia.

Regarding India, I think it is fair to say that nothing harmed democracy more than "Western influence", I am refering to British colonization here, of course.

I think not, unless you think the India of Nehru was less democratic than that of the Great Mughals.

 

[plarq]

As Rambuchan has pointed out,Mughals are very humane.They didn't start any massacre,respected religious freedom.But India,before and after independence,suffered from uncountable religious,racial and local conflicts,and several PMs had been assassinated.

About the democracy stuff,it's quite new to me,but it's good to hear democracy was also outside of Athen in Ancient world.I have a simple philosophy in judging things,"Things whose are against your backgrounds often turn out to be more reliable,unless they're simply ridiculous,satisfying our evil wills or pretend to be New Bibles."From this principle,I guess luceafarul makes some sense.

There're good and bad historical revisionism,bad ones are holocaust denials,territorial arguments and so on.Good one is,as Rambuchan said,overcoming the eurocentric historical view.
But I'm facing a different situation in China,they use moral/cultural relativism to deny every criticism from West as "Imperialist and Egoist,based on Western discrimination of our world",they even use Mitchell Foucault,Edward Sayid and historical research advance in the West as their mirrors to deflect enlightment and liberal comments.Then they use moral absolutism to blame those Chinese who don't agree with their Chinacentric view of world as "Betrayals", "Anti-Patriot",scums,"Western servants and muscles".

 

[Dann]

I'll have my surprise at the inclusion of Deng Xiaoping on that list noted.

I agree,TLC,highly doubtful character he is.

Good enough for me. China stopped slipping backwards under his watch, and started to roll forward.

But then again, I'm just a materialistic hack with no political ideals.

@plarq
Get out more and stop talking to those losers at the forums and your university dorm. They're making you pessimistic. Play CS, chase a girl, anything. Talk to working people, you'll find a much different China.

 

[plarq]

Dann:You make the very suggestion that my father gave to me!Crazy coincidence!
Heck,I'm not good at games,gals and talking.

 

[Richard Cribb]

@ luceafarul: You are the equivalent of a history porn star . Well the comments at least . You are so on the money with what you have said. I can't reply in full detail right now (got a 1 year old jumping on me) but . Be sure to PM with any quizzes you are running please .

Thanks a lot, my friend, it's the first time anybody called me that!
About the quiz, it works a bit different, I will post the questions on a thread in history forum and anybody interested will PM me with suggestions to answers.

It would have been pretty difficult to find an educated European at that time who wasnt profoundly influenced by ancient Greek thought. I dont think you could even call yourself educated unless you were thoroughly familiar with the Greek classic literature.

I know a little about the Enlightenment. What is sure is that Egypt was the worshipped civilization, a phenomena that had been present in the whole intellectual history of Europe.The usual way of seeing it was that the Greeks passed on the wisdom from Egypt.This changed first during the 19th century, see Bernal.

This part is really almost laughable, sorry lucea. 17th and 18th century Europeans, at the height of Western hubris, rejecting Greek and Roman influence, and instead basing their system of government on the Iroquois? A group of people they barely saw as human, and treated like vermin?

Rambuchan answered this nicely, but I want to fill it out a bit and then we will leave to others to decide what is sorry and laughable. If you also check out the BlackAthena link below, you can judge for yourself when "the height of Western hubris" is reached.
And frankly, I am a bit stunned that you seem to be ignorant about this most important part of your country's history.I have some other obligations right now, but I am totally happy to provide you with the following link, an online version of Bruce E. Johansen's book Forgotten Founders:http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html
It is also a fact that the House of Representatives in the end of 2001 made an unanimous statement saying that it was indeed the Indians that had developed the fundamental principles for freedom of speech and division of power which today's USA is governed by.Unfortunately the link I have to this is broken, I would be very grateful if someone could provide this document, I think the date was 27th November.
@TLC: About ancient Sumer. Just try to read that book. And if you don't see any cultural arrogance based on that "we" invented democracy, then I envy you for living in much nicer intellectual environment than I do. Regarding India, I also must take the easy way out and refer to the link.
But I must say this surprises me.

Well, that something should be a unique Greek invention and a Western one is patently self-contradictory. I do not think we need worry whether a claim is tendentious and or ignorant if it's necessarily false.

I worry far more over the fact that you seem to be totally unfamiliar with that "Black Athena" controversy I mentioned. In that case you would have known that the Greeks at that time considered themselves to be a part of a Levantian culture circle and that they were "westenized" during the 19th century. People like Herodotus, Platon and Isokrates considered Egypt to be the craddle of the philosophy, science and culture their own was built on.They would have been mightily surprised, I think, if they were to live today and read about how remarkable they were. Here is a link concerning that:http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Individual Web Pages/BlackAthena.html

I think not, unless you think the India of Nehru was less democratic than that of the Great Mughals.

This is a bit too Kiplingesque for my taste.Nehru struggled for independence from the British Empire and somehow I feel he wouldn't have been too pleased with you for this one.

I fear my dear fellow that you have misquoted luceafarul . His full sentence reads:

"The Enlightenment were not influenced by ancient Greece in their political thinking, speaking about for instance USA, their project was inded to create a new system without worshipping the past."

There was indeed a distinct 'cultural' difference between America and Europe during the C18th, of course eventually leading to its departure from British parliamentary rule and all that it stood for. The Americans prefered a forward looking emphasis - politically, culturally and philosophically. They refused to use Latin in as widespread a fashion (like in legal circles), chose to promote 'the legend' (not saying it's fictitious here) of the founding forefathers and their 'bill of rights', instead of tracing political identity back to Greece, their architecture was less reminiscent of classical Greek and the very experience of settling the west created an altogether new sense of identity, adventure, independence and freedom, especially from the dusty European heritage which many of them were running away or in exile from.

In this sense, and luceafarul has been very insightful in pointing it out, 'the American-Western cultural project' can be seen to have departed from 'the European-Western cultural project', perhaps sometime in the early C17th, on some pretty core fundamentals, thereby denouncing the notion of a grandly unifying Western Cultural Identity.

You could take this much further, if you think of all the other ideological differences there have been to split the European-Western cultural project. (And of course this can be extended to any culture you wish to choose ).


Gotta pull you up on this one too . Yes, the early European seetlers of America were faced with an Iroquis Confederacy which demonstrated an egalitarian organisation of states (often known in English history as the Five Indian Nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca - this later expanded considerably) which was Democratic in the following way:

The Grand Council was empowered to treat with foreign nations and peoples and to settle disputes among the Five Nations. The Iroquois Confederacy is divided into houses or, in their own parlance, "brotherhoods." The elder brothers are the Mohawks and Senecas. The younger brothers are the Oneidas, Cayugas, and, since 1722, the Tuscaroras. The Onondagas are known as the "Firekeepers." The Senecas and Mohawks confer as a "house," and the Cayugas, Oneidas, and Tuscaroras confer in a separate caucus, in a structure similar to that found in upper and lower houses in some parliamentary systems. Issues that arise before the council are considered first by the Mohawk and Seneca "side," then by the Cayugas, Oneidas, and Tuscaroras in council. If these two "sides" are unable to reach agreement, the matter is sent to the Onondagas, who then cast the deciding vote. If the two "sides" reach agreement, the Onondagas have no veto power and must confirm the decision. In each of their deliberations there is an effort to reach unanimity, but when unanimity is impossible to achieve a vote is taken to determine the sense of the assembly. If the measure is favored by a significant majority, a second vote is taken at which those who dissented are expected to express solidarity with the others.

[Houghton Miflin, Encyclopedia of American Indians. Online version is here:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_017500_iroquoisconf.htm]

There are records and reports in English history dating back to the 16th century and many American Indians say that the system was in existence since around 800-900BC. This is difficult to prove however because the Iroquois used an oral history tradition. It's worth mentioning that many anthropologists claim oral history to be far more accurate due to its constant memorisation techniques, whereas literary traditions tend to warp information from one edition and author to the other. Of course I therefore cannot provide any written proof to this but would need an Iroquois historian to tell you - and mine's just popped to the shop for some smokes but check the link, there's plenty there.

Of course these Iroquois histories don't get told that often. It doesn't help in killing them off if you go about telling everyone what clever governments they had devised. Much better to go for the barefoot, savage with a stone axe. Much easier to kill or imprison someone who you don't know lives in a democracy. Some things never change eh? Man I love my signature all the more now !

Splendid post and saving me some time.
I agree that your signature is quite good.The more so since it actually seems like people is unaware of the works of people like Bernal and Johansen, something that surprises me more than a little.

 

[amadeus]

Yes, the early European seetlers of America were faced with an Iroquis Confederacy which demonstrated an egalitarian organisation of states (often known in English history as the Five Indian Nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca - this later expanded considerably) which was Democratic in the following way:

The Grand Council was empowered to treat with foreign nations and peoples and to settle disputes among the Five Nations. The Iroquois Confederacy is divided into houses or, in their own parlance, "brotherhoods." The elder brothers are the Mohawks and Senecas. The younger brothers are the Oneidas, Cayugas, and, since 1722, the Tuscaroras. The Onondagas are known as the "Firekeepers." The Senecas and Mohawks confer as a "house," and the Cayugas, Oneidas, and Tuscaroras confer in a separate caucus, in a structure similar to that found in upper and lower houses in some parliamentary systems. Issues that arise before the council are considered first by the Mohawk and Seneca "side," then by the Cayugas, Oneidas, and Tuscaroras in council. If these two "sides" are unable to reach agreement, the matter is sent to the Onondagas, who then cast the deciding vote. If the two "sides" reach agreement, the Onondagas have no veto power and must confirm the decision. In each of their deliberations there is an effort to reach unanimity, but when unanimity is impossible to achieve a vote is taken to determine the sense of the assembly. If the measure is favored by a significant majority, a second vote is taken at which those who dissented are expected to express solidarity with the others.

[Houghton Miflin, Encyclopedia of American Indians. Online version is here:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_017500_iroquoisconf.htm]

But individuals themselves had no impact on intertribal politics, so it's more like the Soviet Central Committee.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

@luceafarul & Rambuchan: Ive heard of this vaguely before, but I havent done alot of reading on it. At first glance, it just seems like more PC revisionist craziness. 18th century Europeans, who saw non whites as either vermin, or draft animals, modeling their system of government after a Native American group. Thats just a really tough one for me to swallow. Sure there were differences between Americans and Europeans, but I think youre exagerating somewhat. At that time alot of what we see as American distinctive characteristics hadnt fully formed. When you get down to the basics, like perceptions about race, the colonists were completely European.

 

[Dann]

Dann:You make the very suggestion that my father gave to me!Crazy coincidence!

That's because...

*heavy breathing* "plarq, I AM your father."

Hee hee hee...

Sorry about the bad Star Wars joke. I'll stop now. Stop hitting me. Ow!

 

[Provolution]

This was a good issue to provoke debate.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I worry far more over the fact that you seem to be totally unfamiliar with that "Black Athena" controversy I mentioned.

Considering I have not commented on it, I'm not sure how you're getting the impression I'm unfamiliar with it.

In that case you would have known that the Greeks at that time considered themselves to be a part of a Levantian culture circle and that they were "westenized" during the 19th century.

This is controversial? Well, I'd say their Westernization was rather more out-drawn, but that's details.

One could, of course, define Western civilization as to include ancient Greece, but there seems to be a severe shortage of decent reasons to do so.

This is a bit too Kiplingesque for my taste.Nehru struggled for independence from the British Empire and somehow I feel he wouldn't have been too pleased with you for this one.

I couldn't care less how pleased Nehru would've been of that. I'd be all ears if he could reasonably argue that his India was less democratic than that of the Great Mughals.

As for Kipling, I'm not saying that the British brought democracy to India out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm arguing that the British rule created the conditions for democracy where they had not existed.

 

[Rambuchan]

But individuals themselves had no impact on intertribal politics, so it's more like the Soviet Central Committee.

We don't know that they didn't. And if they didn't then it wouldn't be dissimilar to the way democracy operates in most Western countries now (voter apathy, voter ignorance, voter's failing to meet their civic obligations / right).

As Rambuchan has pointed out,Mughals are very humane.

I've said nothing about the Mughals at all. I'm not sure how this came about. They didn't operate a democratic system but a 'Mansab system', half way between a Monarchy and a Republic, but I'm not the best on governmental structures to elaborate. This system btw was what the English used to erect their Viceroy styled system - it was a direct replication of the MAnsab System.

There're good and bad historical revisionism,bad ones are holocaust denials,territorial arguments and so on.Good one is,as Rambuchan said,overcoming the eurocentric historical view.

Of course I am going to heavily concur on this. For all those who slam historical revisionism, please understand this:

- We are not taking an historical revisionist stance to create some anti-western construct. You'll see we aren't elevating any other cultural, source of history as being the 'ultimate historical truth' to discredit western achievements wholescale. We are simply showing that history is far more complex.

- We are demonstrating that the received history which most people glibbly quote is a) Prejudiced b) Inaccurate c) Highly selective - and this all amounts to it being propaganda. And I believe that on these forums propaganda is largely discredited, so why do you keep citing this simplistic, Eurocentric crap?

- We are showing that cultural advances (which have been written out of history) are valid contributions to the state of the world today and shows that people throughout history have been far more co-operative, and that ideas have travelled far more, than these shortsighted and limiting notions of a monolithic 'western culture' lead us to believe.

- Eurocentricism is a plain and ugly truth, which causes much misunderstanding, ill-feeling and worse still - a sense of superiority.

- Those who write off historical revisionism will have to address these points above for us revisionists to take you seriously.