The Reason why the Iroquois are in Civ 3

[Ribannah]

What's that? I hear toctoctoctoctoc ....

[orange]

Originally posted by Ribannah
What's that? I hear toctoctoctoctoc ....

Ribannah - if you don't have anything coherent to post, please, do us all a favor, don't post.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange


Ribannah - if you don't have anything coherent to post, please, do us all a favor, don't post.

Hey, we all pad our post count a little, don't we?

I realize I posted this in the wrong forum:

Looking over past posts that I missed, I was very interested in this idea of determining exactly which techs the Iroquois can be said to have possessed prior to European influence. I had alot of strong disagreements with what people said about certain techs and what qualified...but felt orange hit the nail on the head buy using the Civ2 Civilopedia tech descriptions. I think these should be the standard, as they are the closest we can get game designer's intent.

Another point is the starting tech. Every settler in 4000 BC starts with a minimum of two techs...Irrigation and Roads.

Since the Iroquois possessed neither, I see that as a further indication that they should not qualify as a "civilization."

Again...without these rudimentary skills, which Civ2 obviously considered vital to being a civilization, how can we include the Iroquois?

Cheers.

[Ribannah]

As a posted over there:

I guess you never heard of the Geneese Road, that connected many Iroquois
communities. For their crops in the river valleys the Iroquois didn't need much
irrigation on a regular basis, but when the need arose they used simple irrigation
ditches.

[Ironwood]

Well, I see Ribannah has managed to completely ignore the concepts presented in my post, as do all who blindly hold to a fantasy when it is challenged reasonably. Still including Philosophy, Navigation, Leadership, etc. eh? Not even a word of refutation for me, right?

I don't care about the governmental techs. They are a gameplay simplification anyway. We could sit and argue the nature of the governmental techs until we're blue in the face; nobody will be convinced of anything. Such arguments generally begin and end with the assertation "There's no such thing as Democracy" and degenerate into a cesspool of semantics. So you can have all the governments. Hell, I'll give you communism and fundamentalism, if you want them.

The original poster didn't ask which words which are used for techs could be applied in a twisted manner to the Cherokee. He asked which *civ techs* could be applied. Your inclusion of Leadership belies this concept.

I'm done with this thread. There is nothing more to be accomplished.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Thank you, Fiil .
I think you should enjoy reading this treatise about Iroquois warfare, since you seem to know a bit about tactics:
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/eth/46.4keener.html

I did enjoy reading the article and once again I'm astounded of the Iroquois. But remember that this still cannot even be compared with the Romans when comparing with European Civs.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ribannah- that is not environmentalism ... these people were not thinking about the land, they were thinking about their food

Here's a piece I stumbled on while researching the Goldrush:

http://www.globallearningnj.org/mineb.htm

One of the concepts implicit in sustainable development is intergenerational responsibility. Sustainability implies a balance between the basic needs of the inhabitants of the earth and the environment, the resource base which supplies those needs. Intergenerational responsibility implies a concern that the present use of resources will ensure that future generations will be able to meet their needs also.
This is not a new concept. For example, Native American tradition included intergenerational concern in the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee, People of the Longhouse -- The Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy (Oneida, Cayuga, Tuscarora, Mohawk, Onondaga and Seneca). "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

[orange]

Originally posted by Ironwood
Well, I see Ribannah has managed to completely ignore the concepts presented in my post, as do all who blindly hold to a fantasy when it is challenged reasonably. Still including Philosophy, Navigation, Leadership, etc. eh? Not even a word of refutation for me, right?

I don't care about the governmental techs. They are a gameplay simplification anyway. We could sit and argue the nature of the governmental techs until we're blue in the face; nobody will be convinced of anything. Such arguments generally begin and end with the assertation "There's no such thing as Democracy" and degenerate into a cesspool of semantics. So you can have all the governments. Hell, I'll give you communism and fundamentalism, if you want them.

The original poster didn't ask which words which are used for techs could be applied in a twisted manner to the Cherokee. He asked which *civ techs* could be applied. Your inclusion of Leadership belies this concept.

I'm done with this thread. There is nothing more to be accomplished.

I don't blame you one bit man. Don't worry though, I'm glad you posted what you did. It made me think of more stuff.

I'm too stubborn to let her fling **** around, so I'll stay until she A) realizes she's wrong or B) Shut's the hell up.

[DarkCloud]

I stand by all the refutations orange made of Ribannah's reply to me.

They had NO NEED OF ENVIRONMENTALISM, it was merely ADVANCED FARMING techniques they used.

In Civ II Statue of Liberty= Democracy for all land holding white males... all of them vote- I think it was a bit more limited in the Iroquois lands

ribannah- you refuted none of my statements coherently or deftly- only "possibly" the democracy statement- and even then, you knew you were wrong.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by orange
This does not equate to Communism...it's still despotism.

Marx and Engels themselves mention the Iroquois as having an early form of communism because of their common ownership of means of production. They refer to the research of anthropologist Lewis Morgan and his work "Ancient Society".

[orange]

source?

[Ribannah]

Marx & Engels Collected Works.
For instance: Fredrick Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", 1884, which has an entire chapter on the Iroquois.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
In Civ II Statue of Liberty= Democracy for all land holding white males... all of them vote- I think it was a bit more limited in the Iroquois lands
ribannah- you refuted none of my statements coherently or deftly- only "possibly" the democracy statement- and even then, you knew you were wrong.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/index.html

Re: Democracy

On June 11, 1776 while the question of independence was being debated, the visiting Iroquois chiefs were formally invited into the meeting hall of the Continental Congress. There a speech was delivered, in which they were addressed as "Brothers" and told of the delegates' wish that the "friendship" between them would "continue as long as the sun shall shine" and the "waters run." The speech also expressed the hope that the new Americans and the Iroquois act "as one people, and have but one heart." After this speech, an Onondaga chief requested permission to give Hancock an Indian name. The Congress graciously consented, and so the president was renamed "Karanduawn, or the Great Tree." With the Iroquois chiefs inside the halls of Congress on the eve of American Independence, the impact of Iroquois ideas on the founders is unmistakable. History is indebted to Charles Thomson, an adopted Delaware, whose knowledge of and respect for American Indians is reflected in the attention that he gave to this ceremony in the records of the Continental Congress.
Artwork by John Kahionhes Fadden.
from Exemplar of Liberty, Native America and the Evolution of Democracy, Chp.8, "A New Chapter, Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine"

The tribal structure of the Iroquois is quite complicated, because apart from the nations and the confederacy, they also had clans (eight of them). Marriage within a clan was not permitted. The main clans, that existed even before the formation of separate tribes, were (are) present in all of the nations as well as in many other tribes.
The clan (within a community) had a democratic assembly of all male and female adult members, all with equal votes. This assembly elected sachems (peace-chiefs), war-chiefs and also the other "Keepers of the Faith," and deposed them; it took decisions regarding blood revenge or payment of atonement for murdered members; it adopted strangers into the clan. In short, it was the sovereign power in the clan.
The sachems from the several clans formed the council of a tribe (nation) to handle tribal affairs. Representatives of these councils sat in the Grand Council of the confederacy. The Five Nations Grand Council counted 50 sachems in total.
Every single member of the tribe(s), male or female, had the right to participate in every discussion. Any decision made by any council had to be unanimous.

(Compiled from the same text by Fredrick Engels as mentioned in my previous post.)

Edit: What Engels doesn't mention is that the sachems - always male - were nominated by the clan mothers of families holding hereditary rights to office titles. The Grand Council at Onondaga could also nominate sachems outside the hereditary structure, based on merit alone. These sachems, called "pine tree chiefs," were said to have sprung from the body of the people as the symbolic
Great White Pine springs from the earth. These two additions add Monarchic and Republican elements to the government of the Iroquois.

[orange]

Re: Re: Democracy

nope, I'm not buying it. First of all, the declaration of independence had already been written signed and accepted.

Secondly, the Articles of Confederation were formed shortly after, which as we all know, failed miserably. The actual constitution, the basis for American democracy, wasn't created until 1781, at which I assure you no Iroquois tribe leaders attended.

What your PC site quote shows, Ribannah, is that an Iroquois guy tried to plead with the Americans for peace between his people and there's. There is not ONE thing you posted that says "Such and such Iroquois person outlined a democratic system" or anything CLOSE.

In all actuality, an Iroquois tribe leader came in, called Hancock a tree, and pleaded for a peace that would never be realized. NOT DEMOCRACY!

[Ribannah]

Re: Re: Re: Democracy

Originally posted by orange
nope, I'm not buying it.

Well, I'm sticking with the historians. But if you can quote a source that contradicts Iroquois influence, be my guest.

In all actuality, an Iroquois tribe leader came in, called Hancock a tree, and pleaded for a peace that would never be realized. NOT DEMOCRACY!

Isn't that still the custom for newly chosen presidents in the USA?