@bradstevens can you repeat to me the Franklin quote in episode 1 word for word? At no point does it say the US based it's constitution on the Iroquois. The series is pointing out there were governmentS in North America alongside the English government. They had some interesting ideas, the Iroquois had a federalist form.
As I said, most descendents of Iroquois ARE Americans today. Why are we so offended brown Americans are given a crumb over White Europeans. Look at that quote, word for word, and tell me how it says the US based it's government on them
But if I had to suggest a couple of things, the Iroquois Confederacy prohibited one from having multiple positions, as do we. The Romans and Brits have/had no such restrictions though Greece did. Greece had federalism, Rome did not.
Iroquois had a form of impeachment, as do we. We didn't copy, but is it impossible the people in Philly knew of these and, as part of their overall knowledge, considered them
Many Americans view Natives as ignorant savages yet today. Consider that sentence in context of the quote
They enslaved their captured, were cannibals, & tortured people to death slowly in religious ceremonies. Slave owners!!! Did you know Mohawk means “flesh eater” in Algonquin? Let’s make sure we don’t marbleize them Marv…
@oneeyedundertaker from Google AI, I can link several sites that say they were not cannibals::
+1
- Origin of the name: The name "Mohawk" is English and comes from the Algonquian language.
- Original meaning: The Algonquian word "Mohowauuck" was interpreted by the English to mean "man-eater".
- Actual name: The Mohawk people refer to themselves as the Kanien'kehaka, which means "People of the Flint".
@oneeyedundertaker from Google AI, I can link several sites that say they were not cannibals::
Why were the Mohawks called man-eaters?+1
The Mohawk were called "man-eaters" because of the meaning of the name given to them by English colonists, which was derived from the Algonquian word "Mohowauuck". This term was not a reflection of their culture, but simply the English interpretation of a neighboring tribe's name for them. The Mohawk people call themselves the Kanien'kehaka, meaning "People of the Flint".
- Origin of the name: The name "Mohawk" is English and comes from the Algonquian language.
- Original meaning: The Algonquian word "Mohowauuck" was interpreted by the English to mean "man-eater".
- Actual name: The Mohawk people refer to themselves as the Kanien'kehaka, which means "People of the Flint".
https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/Foundation/journal/Winter07/jamestown.cfm#:~:text=But%20the%20Iroquois%2C%20Mohawk%2C%20and,the%20systematic%20humiliation%20of%20foes.
And I can provide just as many sources that say they were, including this article that confirms they did it not for survival, but to gain the power of the person they ate. But even if they weren’t they were slave owners, torturers, & vicious conquerors of other tribes. It is important to understand this in the context of basing our government of these very flawed, vicious, violent people who oppressed those they conquered.
@oneeyedundertaker I think you will also find evidence the Brits said the French were engaged in cannibalism in North America. It was a charge that galvanized people.
Or maybe the French were cannibals, anyone that eats snails needs to be watched.
I'm not a snowflake. I'm someone who care about accuracy. I'll count you in the camp that doesn't, I guess.Well, that one article proves everyone else wrong! There you go. Also, was unaware that you were a snowflake. I watched the entire series it was very well done. It wasn't perfect from my perspective, but it was damn good. Any objective person could watch it without clutching his/her pearls.Maybe this will help you:It was excellent. I don’t get the consternation a few seem to be having with it.Word is Burns couldn’t refrain from injecting his shitty racial politics into episode two. Episode is getting panned. I haven’t seen it myself, but that would track.
I watched him give the commencement address at UPenn a few years ago and the whole thing was “Ben Franklin’s infidelity this, founders racism that”.
But he made sure to let the graduates know they were all brave for surviving covid. Aka, sitting at home and doing zoom school in their sweats.
Guy actually used to be a halfway decent documentarian too. Tragic.
Im halfway through the first episode and almost gave up because of the constant jabs around minorities and women. Yea, we get it, shit wasn’t great when you look back 300 years later, but let’s stick to the main issues and not try and make everything into victimization
It is a documentary about the US, ALL of the US. Not just, "rah rah, go White men." That would be called propaganda. I thought episode 1 was excellent.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/24/opinion/ken-burns-makes-a-woke-mockery-of-americas-founding/
As to the connection between the Iroqouis and our "democracy and constitution"
"The film suggests a connection between a statement made by the Iroquois leader Canasatego recommending a union on the one hand and Franklin on the other, but this is will-o’-the-wisp stuff.
Canasatego made his statement at a 1744 conference over the Treaty of Lancaster, a negotiation between the Iroquois and several colonies.
For his part, Franklin cited the Iroquois having a confederacy in one sentence in a 1751 letter about the possibility of a colonial union.
That’s it."
"As the scholar Robert Natelson has noted, the Iroquois don’t show up as a model in the 34-volume “Journals of the Continental Congress”; the three-volume collection “The Records of the Federal Convention” (in tiger words, the Constitutional Convention); or the more than 40-volume “Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.”"
And as for the make up of the supposed Iroquois "democracy":
"As for the Iroquois confederation being a democracy, it’s laughable agitprop.
There were no elections; leaders were selected by women elders, whose status was hereditary."
****
But y'all said there should be no explanation of their "democracy," right? Huh, I wonder how I smoked that one out just by asking a few, basic questions? Why didn't Burns? Or worse, why did he mislead people about the Iroquios history? @arthur-dent
To be completely honest, I have no idea what you mean in your closing paragraph.
Your inability to carry on a debate without using ad hominem is unsurprising.
@oneeyedundertaker I think you will also find evidence the Brits said the French were engaged in cannibalism in North America. It was a charge that galvanized people.
Or maybe the French were cannibals, anyone that eats snails needs to be watched.
You’re sidestepping the real issue here, why is it so difficult for some of you to admit these brown people had flaws & they don’t detract from the great things the did? Be careful or Aloha will call you a snowflake…
@oneeyedundertaker Of corse they had flaws and not a single person said they didn’t.
Start at 1:39. He says the Iroquois had a "democracy that had flourished for centuries."can you repeat to me the Franklin quote in episode 1 word for word?
https://www.pbs.org/video/episode-1-introduction-dpnsre/
Go on further to 2:10 and onward and Burns clearly implies that Franklin made his famous cartoon and call for union based directly on the Iroquios.
Don't mix me up with people complaining about Native Americans being included at all. That's bullshit. You called me out for asking that Burns maybe give us a little context for that, a "warts and all" description that you claim to favor. I do, too. He didn't, though, did he? Instead, he went with a flat-out falsehood at worst, and a glaring misleading statement at best. Had he done what I suggested, he wouldn't have made that mistake. But it didn't fit his narrative.
Burns isn't the saint you seem to think he is. There's no harm in criticizing him or debating his framing. It doesn't make someone a racist or a whitewasher or a snowflake, and accusing people of that just because you don't like or agree with their criticism is bullshit.
@oneeyedundertaker Of corse they had flaws and not a single person said they didn’t.
Why are you so butthurt about me bringing them up? Only a woke snowflake would have an issue with discussing this.
A historian doesn't write things out as true that might be possible. He searches for evidence. The Revolutionary generation wrote a lot. Over the last 250 years, I'm guessing historians of the period have poured over it all, yet nothing exists to back up your claim. Nothing, for example, exists to link Franklin's snake drawing and argument with the Iroquios. Hell, the French did a version of it in 1685--were they, too, influenced by the famed Iroquios "flourishing democracy?" Is it "impossible" that they knew of it?is it impossible the people in Philly knew of these and, as part of their overall knowledge, considered them
I’m not butthurt at all. I’m noting how some of you seem to have a real problem that native Americans were included in the documentary at all. Seems very much snowflake-like.@oneeyedundertaker Of corse they had flaws and not a single person said they didn’t.
Why are you so butthurt about me bringing them up? Only a woke snowflake would have an issue with discussing this.
And here you go. Burns has already admitted he had a narrative in mind to "reframe" the Revolution:
- Central Story: He has explicitly stated, "The central story is the taking of Native American land," framing this as a critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of the Revolution.
- Challenging the Narrative: Burns aims to strip away the "barnacles of sentimentality" from the traditional, sanitized story of "great men in Philadelphia thinking great thoughts".
- Sovereign Nations: The documentary emphasizes that Native American groups were not a single, monolithic entity, but distinct, sovereign nations (more than two dozen were involved) with their own foreign policies and diplomatic relationships, which were as distinct from each other as the French were from the Dutch.
- Haudenosaunee Confederacy: The series discusses how the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Confederacy, an established model of union, may have inspired Benjamin Franklin and other colonial leaders, a fact often omitted from textbooks.
- Collaborative Effort: Burns and his team worked with Indigenous consultants and the Cherokee Film Office to ensure that Native voices and perspectives were woven authentically and respectfully into the narrative.
I’m not butthurt at all. I’m noting how some of you seem to have a real problem that native Americans were included in the documentary at all. Seems very much snowflake-like.@oneeyedundertaker Of corse they had flaws and not a single person said they didn’t.
Why are you so butthurt about me bringing them up? Only a woke snowflake would have an issue with discussing this.
Not one person said that.
@oneeyedundertaker I think you will also find evidence the Brits said the French were engaged in cannibalism in North America. It was a charge that galvanized people.
Or maybe the French were cannibals, anyone that eats snails needs to be watched.
Could be worse. They could have eaten the pets, the cats and dogs.
Latest Post: Portal Kombat (Basketball Edition) Our newest member: Mark Wittenbrink Recent Posts Unread Posts
