What contributed to Europeans becoming dominant?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25674
Printed Date: 15-May-2024 at 09:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What contributed to Europeans becoming dominant?
Posted By: cecc44
Subject: What contributed to Europeans becoming dominant?
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 19:49
|
Hi Guys, I'm trying to understand what contributed to the Europeans becoming the dominant global empire come the modern era. I understand it has everything to do with their globalization, but what made these global colonial empires sustainable for such a long time? Further, why was it western Europe that started to globalize as opposed to lets say, the Chinese Empire? Cheers :) |
Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 19:54
|
Discontent. Dissatisfaction. The western European peoples (basically we're talking about the countries of the Atlantic and North Sea shores) wanted more than they had: the Chinese were pretty satisfied with themselves. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 20:11
|
The menace of the Turks was a motivation as well. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 20:15
| It should be someone. |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 20:43
What menace? For example during various periods of 16th century France and Poland was "ally" of Turkey. It would only be Austrians to whom the Turks would be "menace". |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 21:07
|
The menace on Iberia and the monopoly of Eastern commerce started the Age of Discovery ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 22:59
Not sure... the Portuguese early discoveries had little to do with the Turks. The Ottoman menace and the costs involved may have payed a marginal role roughly for the 1453-1600 period and only for the Spanish and Portuguese cases. The French, English and Dutch just couldn't care less. Regarding what have been said about the Chinese not caring, it has to be mentioned that the state and the state-elite did not care. It is likely that some merchants and other classes would have been OK with a global empire but the emperor had no incentive to take the risk. Unlike the European kings, the Chinese emperor did not depend at all on the taxes levied on the merchants' wares, so he was just interested by the peasants' welfare and productivity. The merchants had no leverage on the king. On the other hand, in England, Portugal and the Netherlands, the monarch heavily depended on the revenues coming from the taxes levied on the merchants and thus had a significant interest in seeing the merchant class getting richer. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 02:00
It might be better to say "the menace of other Western Europeans". Unlike unified China with no immediate power rivals, Europe was fragmented into many competing powers. This competition then forced mechants, Kings, and Admirals to innovate or to take business and military risks. Risk taking and innovation were things that the Chinese power monopoly simply did not have to do. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 03:12
Precisely that covers the base. Strict competition, too, was a factor in an environment where agriculture strictly improved and a uniform political reality aside from the elusive and practically theoretical Holy Roman Empire barely existed. Plus of course the East Islamic and Chinese states were definitely content and arrogant due to their past achievement. From studies in the Islamic world a lot of source material hints at a rejection of the West's scholars as serious at that moment in time. Perfection as they saw it had been met and the West through Spain and the Crusades and travelogues soaked up information and utilized and worked on various other achievements. Borrowing and improviing existing or flat out inventing. I also subscrice to Hodgson's "The Great Western Transmutation" theory & essay, which in my opinion presents a good case and effectively describes the changes and conditions that led to Western industrilization. Unfortunately I do not have an electronic medium of the essay to post. ------------- |
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 11:00
Aside from competition (which I won't talk about because it's already covered), there's also the population factor. While Europe may not have a lot of people compared to, say, China, it has a high population density. Opportunities within the home countries are limited, and people went overseas to colonies like in North America. Another factor is trade. This is quite important especially if we're talking in Asia. Europe, which needs spices, etc from the East, has a lot to gain bypassing the Muslim middlemen in the Middle East and setting up their own sea-based trade in the Indian Ocean. The Europeans developed their military and industrial technology, and reform their political structure, very rapidly from around 1600. Until around 1700 most countries in Asia were competible with the Europeans in these respects, but the Europeans has a decisive lead over them by 1800. After 1800 the Europeans began really spreading their power all over the world due to the Industrial Revolution and the advances in weaponry, manufacturing and transport that comes with it. I recommend reading "Gun, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It's a pretty good book on this topic. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 08:19
Oy, monocausalism alert. Let's be somewhat more modest and suggest that the "Ottoman menace" provided additional motivation and purpose to European exploration, alongside a number of other factors. Also, by the time that European imperialism reached its height the Ottomans were no longer much of a menace but more of an oriental curiosity. ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 10:56
|
First of all, there is no such thing as 'Europe'. Portugal, England and Holland had wildly different goals than Venice, Genua or Ragusa. And when the former group got powerful, the latter group got weaker.
Ottomans, Venice, Genua, Spain, Ragusa, all had a stake in the Mediterranean trade, and they all tried to keep it going. It is an idiotic Western lie which says that the Ottomans strangled the Med trade. To the contrary. They attacked the Portuguese all the way to India in order to keep it going.
Portuguese were the ones who wanted to sabotage the Med trade (they had no port in the Med) and import goods directly from the East. Another reason why the Ottomans went into Egypt and Sudan and the Portuguese went into Western Africa is gold. Europe and the Middle East lacked gold, and the Easterners such as Indians and Chinese traded their products for gold. When the Portuguese got the African gold and went around Africa, they could attract the Eastern trade directly and strangle the Med trade. Ottomans were then forced to expand to Egypt.
Threfore it is wrong to say that the Ottoman expansion into Egypt forced 'Europe' into expansion. It was the other way around. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 15:22
|
I spoke about this today for an hour or so, so I'll post a few of my surviving thoughts, even if they be mentioned here before: As Huntingdon said, the Western civilization is what it is due to the combination of traits which would be the following: Classical heritage, separation of secular and ecclesiastical power, individualism, pluralism in society, representative councils, catholicism and protestantism, and the diversity of language. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 16:04
|
Hello to you all What Samuel Huntington said is simple BS. Japan didn't have any of those condition when it became a world power in the early 1900s. Half of Europe had those qualifications and yet they were as bad as their southern neighbours. The real answer is simple. It is the economy. when those nations started concerning themselves with trade and their governments became more and more institutionalised rather than being under the whim of the representitive of God on earth then europe took the lead. And with scientific developement this lead grew dramatically. Al-Jassas |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 16:08
|
the Industrial Revolution is mabey the biggest key to European power since the 19 century ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 17:50
|
As he said, some of those things may have been elsewhere, but what made West what West is, was the combination of all of them.
------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 12:35
|
Huntington is the last of a long line of Western racists/Orientalists. Still, I would really love it if the Western racists/Orientalists (that is majority of the people in the West) would read him.
Now let's tear this argument apart.
In his book he claims that the West has adopted the Greeco-Roman heritage more than other descendants, including the Orthodox. Doesn't have much proof to support this, because, frankly, there isn't any. Self-evidently ridiculous.
This did not happen until late in the West.
I would have said this is vaguely defined, but I can't because it is not even defined. Even if such a thing exists at all, it was only there in the West after enlightenment and political revolutions.
Another vague concept. If this really exited in a political context, it was after the bourgeois revolutions.
Yet another vague concept. Everyone had some sort of representative council.
Finally something that makes sense. Religion (actually, church) is the only factor which defined the West before the Enlightenment. However, I don't think anyone is retarded enough to claim that West got powerful because of the Catholic church.
Again, useless in explaining anything as everyone had diversity of language.
All in all, Huntington is full of BS, as others said.
However, a West exists today. So what defines it? Christianity, developed economy, bourgeois democracy, OECD and NATO membership (although not all NATO/OECD members are Western), come to mind.
What about the West before modernity? It was defined only by religion, as Western Christendom, and as the areas under Western Roman influence.
And before that? Like Huntington says there was no West before that. He's right about Rome or Greece not being 'West'. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 13:53
|
The concept of the West developed in extension of the concept of Christendom, so yes, it was originally defined by religion. Christendom developed in extension of the classical heritage, partly, but one cannot ignore the influence of the cultures it encompassed, especially that of the Germanic tribes. The Christianity that developed in western Europe during the early middle ages was a compromise between Judeo-Roman religion and Germanic tradition. Separation between church and state occurred in the high middle ages, during the peak of Papal power, but dissipated towards the later middle ages when faced with the increasingly strong states. Protestantism eclipsed it completely. This is why I find it a bit contradictory that Huntington uses both protestantism and the separation of church and state to define the West. Individualism cannot be said to have been a defining factor. Until very recently Western nations stressed conformity, you need only go a few generations back. Pluralism in society and representative councils are very wide terms, you could probably find something that fits in all cultures. Diversity of language can hardly be said to have been a unique trait either; neither China, the Ottoman empire or India were monolingual. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 15:40
|
Beylerbey, you are quite wrong. The Western lands, or what we call them, have been known to keep the secular and ecclesiastical powers separate, and not only in the recent times. This began long ago, from the Imperial Roman times and such.
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 15:53
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 16:02
|
Hello to you all
Obviously rider you haven't heard of the inquisition, wars of religion and the anti-Catholic and anti-protestant laws that remained on the books till the 20th century in many european countries.
The only real reason for wars in Europe was money. Countries fought not for the pope but to enhance the bottom line. When European powers started colonizing, they began with weak and divided but emmensly rich nations. By the 17th century and for the first time in european history, the percentage of rich commoners was higher than that of the royalty or nobility. And innovation always start from the bottom up and their large wealth made them control the nobles and thus the state. But still Europe was, till 1800, pretty much on the same footing as the rest of the world. It was the spread of the industrial revolution that pretty much ensured the position europe now has. If it was the Ottomans, Chinese and the Mughals who took Africa and the Americas the story would have been exactly the opposite but china hated merchants, the mughals were already too rich to bother searching for other riches and the Ottomans, they were busy killing sultans and veziers. Europe on the other hand chose the sea route well before those nations and it was the countries with access to sea that developed first in europe.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 22:44
The disagreement seems to be due to the following situations:
- Theocratic state: political, religious and judicial power were united in one source
- States with a single religious identity: One church serves as the basis for national idenitity / culture. Leaders and traditions of this church have varying degrees of influence in political authority and judicial matters.
As rider states, totally theocratic states quickly ceased to exist in Europe. As Al Jassas implies, states with a national religous identity lasted far longer. The degree of church influence varied from very high (Catholic Spain, Orthodox Russia) to increasingly nominal and secular Britian, France, Netherlands etc.
Whatever his other flaws, Huntington is correct in this area. Theocratic societies or socieites with high religious influence tend to distrust the social changes that economic advancement brings (traditional social system ordained by God(s), women have traditional roles, work activities allow plenty of time for religious participation etc.). There are examples of these traits in Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Confucian societies. Due to religious opposition to change, these socieites usually do not make rapid economic or technical advances.
The concept of individualism started to develop far before the enlightenment and political revoltions. Individualism developed and expanded with the merchant class. Another early illustration of individualism is the The Magna Carta. Sure, some persons were deemed more uhmm... "individual" than others, but the Magna Carta was a huge step from Middle Ages.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 02:28
|
In my opinion: 1. Ming China had an isolationist policy (in 1436 the Emperor banned the construction of ocean-going ships...). This in itself contributed to their lack of development in the modern era, unable to reap the benefits of the dissemination of technology and knowledge from Europe.
2. The Turks simply tried to do too much. Deploying troops all across the Eastern Mediterranean was too expensive, and that coupled with the lack of free trade and the centralized conservative government made progress slow.
3. Political fragmentation in Europe gave them the advantages needed to become dominant. The consequences of political fragmentation were the diversity of ideas, of economies, and the fierce military competition. The diversity of ideas in all of the separate European states enabled the development of advanced literature, militaries, governments, and economies. The diversity of those economies was enforced by the fact that for the earlier part of the era, there was no European hegemon. This enabled progress in each of the separate states. And the fierce military competition between the geographically and politically "tenuous" states forced the Europeans to develop new military technologies, strategies, and this lead to a general arms race. The competition stimulated trade and economy, which lead to more money, which lead to more weapons, which lead to more economic leverage/power, etc. It was a cycle.
And yes, after 1648 Europe was completely secular. It introduced the concept of the state as sovereign, and this lead to their development as separate entities, not a tightly-constrained empire under one ruler like the Turks or Chinese.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 14:32
|
Hello to you all
Another reason why europe went on to dominate the world is elitism. I don't know the history behind this idea but I read it in a book a very long time ago and it simply says that countries with large percentage of elites is quicker to dominate and reach power.
Now these elites are practically highly educated middle class people with total control on low level power as well a high representation in the upper echelons of power in a state. Here I would like to give the example of Japan. When Meji came and transformed the country, Japan already had a higher literacy rate than many European countries, about 40% for both sexes. The primary education the japanese took in their childhood was at a higher caliber than the same education in europe and social dynamics were also quite high but not too high. There was a massive accumilation of fortune in Japan and innovation was always welcom and encouraged. When modern education came the transition was much less violent than any other country and more still, was enthusiastically embraced. Of course other also important factors did help Japan to become a world power by 1905 but without the previous condition one cannot say Japan would have had the same success. Applying this theory to other countries will produce strong similarities.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 14:52
|
The Atlantic crossing was much shorter than the Pacific crossing, and Western Europe was poised better than anyone else to take advantage of it. Once they got there, they had access to huge amounts of land and resources that simply didn't exist in the Old World, in particular, a very large variety of never before seen domesticated plants and animals. They were able to tap into new sources of labour, trade, wealth, land, everything that powers the rising fortunes of a nation. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 12:46
|
Geoffrey Parker's The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West 1500-1800 still remains the best introduction to this subject. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 14:55
|
It were several causes:
-the natural medium: temperate climate, variated relief, good waters and food, long coastline that have had an effect on people's abilities to organize themselves better, to think more efficient, by not having the troubles with natural elements as in other zones -the heritage of experience and infrastructure of the Roman empire which itself inherited from ancient Near East and Greek civilizations -the Christian religious philosophy that gived the notions of absolute, infinite and transcedental that made people objectify the world. -------------  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 23:32
For me, Huntington is not a racist but only an idiot
 Yeap. It is pathetic how he tried to push Latin America outside the Western World. Yeap,our region could be relatively poor in comparison to the "AVERAGE" standard of living of the United States, but it has the same roots than the U.S.!!!!
The argument that Latin America was populated by mixed people and the United States by "white" people is even more nonsense now that that country will be governed by a person who is half Kenyan!! What an irony for Mr. wasp Huntington
 ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 07:08
Maybe with that Huntington meant that in Latin America the native populations were more involved in forming new culture and society after Spanish conquest, while in US case the native populations didn't contribute anything and were pushed aside, even eradicated at some places. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 08:32
Yes, that's actually a fairer estimate. His theory is not based on race but people are so fond of waving that particular stick of political correctness around you might find yourself sympathizing with the racists in the end just to annoy these people.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:33
In that Mr. Huntington is also wrong. He forgets that in Latin America, Indigenous people were europeized quite early. Latin America was producing barroque music with native lyrics at the time of Bach! If he were a smart guy he would had understand the difference between North America and Latin America is mainly "money" and not "race". In fact, the U.S. is more African than Latin America. The difference is also in religion: a catholic south and a protestant north.
In the other hand, he forgot his own history. The United States wouldn't be what is it today without the Native American contribution. Europeans couldn't even survived in the New World without the help of natives that feed them. That's the real meaning of thanksgiving, anyways. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:40
Rather than white it was germanic. A society made of immigrants that came in the rush after the U.S. already existed.
Yes. Latin America is a complex mosaic ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:40
|
This topic seems to have got mixed up with the thread about why the US became a superpower.
Europeans dominated in both North and South America, so I do't see how the distinction between north and south is relevant to the topic. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 12:00
This is true for many places. Prior to European colonialism in Africa, America, India and Australia the Germanic-speaking world was quite small. Go back 3000 years and it's confined to southern Scandinavia. It's been quite an expansion. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 17:29
Can you give some examples how did native Americans contributed to USA? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 17:56
Turkey, rootbeer and Kentucky whiskey would be impossible without Amerindian agriculture. Material goods like sport canoes, snowrackets, mocasins either.
The sport of lacroise would be over.
The constitution of the United States, whose concept of "federal" state was inspired in the Iroquois confederation.
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 22:56
|
Pinguin: This business of the US Constitution being inspired by the Iroquois is unfounded. The concept of republican government was long established in Europe. That and the 150 years' experience of colonial governments in administering through the concensus of elites were the determinants. The adoption of English common law goes to the continuity (rather than revolution) of established European concepts. Do some research on the Dutch Republic and the way in which both governance and finance were established and refined. The relationship among the Provinces, the sophistication of both the "repartition system" of common finance in satisfying public policy, and the underlying importance of commerce and credit in making the system possible were crucial in the Constitution's structure.
What the Constitution sought to prevent was the overpowering position of importance Holland had in the political life of the United Provinces, and also the effect of Dutch confessionalism through the influence of the Reformed Church.
I do not see any Indian influence in the Constitution of the United States. Concepts of the most elementary societal organization do not differ much regardless of where they are found. The tribes were not sophisticated enough to address the issues, their customs were limited geographically, and, after the Fr. & In. War, the tribes had little influence on Anglo Americans. The attribution to Native Americans of such influence is a politically correct fad.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 23:39
Parker's book, as most of his work, is well written and convincingly presented. The emphasis on technological innovation is clear (Trace Italienne engineering, transoceanic navigation and marine technology, and gunpowder weapons), but there is something else, I think.
For whatever reason, Europeans, when they had a perceived advantage, attained most of their desired goals with absolute ruthlessness. Portuguese fidalgos, Spanish conquistadores, English planters and Dutch traders saw no reason not to leverage their advantages to secure what they came to get.
For some time, I have thought that maybe it had something to do with the seafaring nature of the European expansionists. Anyone who has had experience at sea knows what a dangerous and violent place it can be. For those who went to sea 500 years ago, it was far more dangerous; a life or death gamble. A violent environment breeds a violent approach.
If they were to risk all on the open sea, with starvation and disease, if they were to find themselves in a potentially hostile place, far from support or help, their survival was contingent on being feared, and on using what advantage they had to dominate and control who they must to get what they came for. I don't think you can quantify that, and it is not objective. As Europeans came to dominate, and as no one seemed able to resist, who was to say at the time that this was not the way it was supposed to be?
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2008 at 21:48
Look into the Albany Conference and the Albany Plan of Union for more information. And the relationship of Benjamin Franklin to the Iroqouis. This is a topic that is hotly debated in the academic world these days - there are arguments both for and against. You can find a nice overview of both positions here: http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm - http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm
You may disagree with the conclusions on how much (if any) influence they exerted but the notion is hardly without basis in a factual historical events (which, based on our previous discussion, it appears you are unfamiliar with). Even critics of the idea acknowledge this much. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2008 at 23:37
Pike, you have a Norwegian, a Latvian, a Chilean and who knows who else, all experts on the US. How dare you as a native born citizen of the US and student of our history, contradict the assembled scholars.  
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 11:32
|
What do they know of England who only England know? ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 11:56
I'm glad we agree on that much. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 14:04
|
The best thing they can come up with is saying a couple of the founding fathers might have been subconsciencly influenced by the Natives. But their isn't any kind of record of them mentioning them, but their is records of them discussing Classical Rome and Greeks I believe. It seemed they had a grand view of history, but I personally haven't read anything of them discussing their present day influences. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 15:16
|
edgewaters:
As I recall from the deleted posts, I did not dispute your relation of historical events, I disputed your interpretation of their importance. Benj Franklin was an admirable and brilliant person, but whatever connection he had, or thought he had, with and among Indian tribes had little or no effect on the Constitutional Convention.
It is my opinion, and we disagree, but that is the way I see it.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 16:46
Pluralism? The West was as much sexist as the most extreme form of Islam today (minus the dress code) until the 20th century! Victorian and Edwardian notions of women spring to mind. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 16:49
I agree with this by and large. The West was on teh ascent long before pluralism, institutionalised government etc. etc. The latter have nothing to do with the West's rise, it was trade and military expansion driven by dissatisfaction at the resources around them. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 17:36
I believe you should study the evidence available once again. From the post of edgewaters, it is quite interesting the following:
From the references given by "edgewaters":
http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm - http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm "John Adams and Thomas Jefferson have left us some additional evidence that the Iroquois and the Iroquois ideals of government may have influenced them. Johansen asserts that Adams, in his book Defence of the Constitution of the United States, discusses the "fifty families of the Iroquois" as a model for the Americans to follow. (Johansen 1998:75) Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the quintessential libertarian in American history, wrote admiringly to John Rutledge during the Constitutional Convention "The only condition on earth to be compared with ours is that of the Indians, where they still have less law than we." (Johansen 1998:75) These are strong words from a man who was no fan of excessive lawmaking.
Iroquois leaders were invited to Independence Hall in 1775 to observe the Continental Congress. They were given positions of honor, indicated by their sleeping quarters in the hall. (Johansen 1998:9.) This bit of history suggests that the Iroquois people were respected, and therefore could have held influence over the thought process of the framers of the emerging American nation" ------------- |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 19:35
But we never had any power, it's unfair! (But on the other hand, that makes us more innocent - or maybe not) ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2008 at 21:58
|
pinguin:
From what I read of the linked source, I am not convinced. Your quote references that Adams and Jefferson had respect for the Iroquois (OK), and "the Iroquois ideals of government may have influenced them." Also, "the Iroquois people were respected, and therefore could have held influence over the thought process of the framers..."
What may have and could have been are hardly conclusive. I also note that the writer of the source states that Iroquois influence is probably subconscious, if present at all, and that the revisionists' theses are not as strong as they would like them to be......that the majority of the framers had little knowledge or understanding of Iroquois culture, and the influences on the Constitution were overwhelmingly European and classical.
I reiterate that the attribution of influence on the US Constitution to Native Americans is an academic fad.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2008 at 00:06
|
Pike:
Everywhere in the Americas, Europeans were influenced by the Indigenous peoples. That happened in Quebec, in Canada, in Brazil, in the Caribbean and also in Hispanic America. Why Americans pretend they are the exception?
Read "Indian Givers" by Jack Weatherford for more recent references. Everything points out to the idea that the "Founding Fathers" saw the Iroquois Federation as a working model they could study alive. Of course theory came from Europe, but many practical things were found locally.
You have to realize pioneers and settlers, when create a new country they find inspiration in the local land, which they start to see as the motherland. It is not so strange they found symbols and ideas in local peoples,more so when some of them where friends.
That happened everywhere else in the Americas. I wonder why the United States keep denying Indians had any importance at all. Just a though.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2008 at 04:00
|
Is it not possible that the colonists, seeing the potential for a dangerous war ahead with the British, thought it pragmatic to cultivate the goodwill of the surrounding native Americans through ingratiating behaviour such as invitation to the Continental Congress. Their war could have been serious hampered by hostile natives in their rear. The last reference provided seems highly speculative in nature, not weighing other possibilities like the one I just mentioned ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2008 at 08:53
That's not true, but ever since the end of the early middle ages we've had a tendency to be overshadowed by our neighbours in England, France, Germany and Russia. We have more or less followed the same pattern of behaviour as other Europeans, but the extent has been limited by population and resources. From that POV it's not really a fair comparison to begin with; the Scandinavian kingdoms were more comparable to individual German or French duchies than the sum of them. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 04:36
The English definately wanted to keep on the good side of the Iroqouis, although the Iroqouis were at war with practically all the other native groups (except the ones they'd forced to disarm and submit). They were the most powerful military force in the region up until the revolution. The revolutionaries may have wanted to stay on good terms, but it was not possible: when the revolution broke out, the ruling council declared that the colonists had broken the covenant chain by taking up arms and were therefore expelled from the Great Peace and under an edict of extermination, as per the Iroqouian constitution. Unfortunately for the Iroqouis, despite the council's decision, they fragmented internally over the question of who to side with, the King or the revolutionaries. They mounted only a few campaigns of extermination against the settlers before the Sullivan Expedition laid waste to the Iroqouian heartland, encountering little resistance due to internal conflict. |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 10:49
|
Anyway, it wasn’t just Western Europe, Tsarist Russia expanded in the same way to the east, conquering a rather large area - although it was not densely populated. ------------- |
Posted By: Chairman
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 20:04
|
Two backwards feudal states, Spain and Portugal, had a leftover class of people whose sole purpose was to expel Muslims and who had little besides a meager country estate. Exploration was a new opportunity for glory. It was only after the benefits of exploration were proven that the real powers like England got in on the game. ------------- These are the times... |