Western civilization as epitomized by the fundamentalist evangelical Christians to be found in the United States of America:

• Men are in control of women
• You must do as I tell you because of God
• Birth control is against God's law
• All Mexicans and other foreigners are evil
• Everybody of a different faith is evil
• All atheists are evil
• Science is the work of the Devil
• The God of the Bible is the One True God, and all other gods are false gods

Most people would expect you to reply as you did. You have proven to be among the biggest racists on line.

@Alienbeing Didn't know you spoke for "most people". Do "most people" know you speak for them or is that just some presumptuous bullshit you say to give your comment the impression of credibility?

My ex wife was once charged more for an MRI by our company insurance than a white woman we both knew who had the same testing ran and the same company insurance. The bastards actually argued with me that it was because her black skin was thicker. I refused to pay the bill.

@DenoPenno I had to go to three different doctors for a rash on my foot. The first two white doctors told me to soak my foot in water every night with Epson salt under the assumption that I didn't wash them well enough. They said it would go away after a few weeks. It didn't. The third was a woman of color who immediately recognized it as eczema, proscribed a steroid and it was gone in two days.

@redbai I do speak for most people, apparently you fail to notice you rarely get agreement.

@Alienbeing Did you note the 13 people who responded favorably with an emoji and you got 1? How does that indicate that you speak for most people? Did you have some secret vote that's not reflected here or don't you know that 13 is greater than 1?

@DenoPenno DAMN IT We know it exists, but it still stuns me when real accounts are spoken of. My ex and myself also faced the day to day issue of ignorant asshole white folk.

@redbai This is a very liberal site. Your numbers are low for such a population.

@Alienbeing No one implied a contest. The implication is that you lied.

@redbai No such implication., because while I could be wrong, it would not be a lie. Get a life.

@redbai I happen to like your contributions here. Public Enemy got ahold of me early. After Obama was elected twice I became one of those deluded postracial (or colorblind) people who thought things had finally changed. I was wrong, very wrong.

Reading Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow helped me realize how bad things still were. I had also done a deep dive on “driving while black” and Operation Pipeline. I learned about this guy and Wilkins v. Maryland State Police : [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@redbai I have no time for @Alienbeing. I see him as projecting his own defects of personality onto other people.

@anglophone What a blow hard statement. First, I didn't ask, nor do I need your time. Any defects I may or may not have are certainly unknown to you.

Is your post an example of the possible "intellectual spanking" you cite in your short bio? If so, you need MUCH more practice.

Who are you anyway?

Someone is late to their KKK rally.

@BufftonBeotch can’t take the German out of this pos .

Celebrate Columbus day by getting lost in the spice aisle and thinking you discovered a continent.

And you feel free to make such judgmental statements to someone you have never met just based on his presumed skin color and gender.

So by blindly raging against a social injustice, have you become what you abhor??

Just say'n .....

@Normanbites The OP literally espoused White Aryan Male supremacy. So I should just sit down and mind my place?

@BufftonBeotch No, of course not. But I for one would have appreciated a bit more elocution to help distinguish the difference between being an old white male who is also a decent human being verses a "White Aryan Male" supremacist.

Sometimes all I need do to be labelled the latter is to first breathe in, then breathe out then commit the sin of continuing to do it.

Or to simply refusing to "...just sit down and mind my place."

@Normanbites He espoused White Male Aryan Supremacy. I do not have any need to respect a white male filthy racist because they are old.

@Normanbites You can kindly fuck off.
I will not sit down and shut up because it is something you want me to do.

@BufftonBeotch Nor will I do that for you I think it is unreasonable that you would expect that I would.

@Normanbites Oh he is well known in this community . This is not the first x we heard his views .

So should we speculate?

@Alienbeing Sure go ahead and speculate on what the world would look like if Europe didn't rape the southern hemisphere of the planet and destroy the various nations in the Americas, lie for generations about it and pretend like they did the world a favor.

@redbai More racist talk that is irrelevant to the subject. What's new?

@Alienbeing You asked a question and I answered it. What's wrong, don't you want to speculate? If not why did you ask?

Persia is a wonderful example of what happens when a religious nutter takes over and destroys a society. I hear Alexandria had a great library. All those folks were not white.

@redbai Please speculate, it should be interesting.

@Alienbeing Why should I, you asked first and my first response was that you should do so? Apparently you have some idea or you wouldn't have brought it up. Go ahead. Don't be shy.

@redbai You misunderstood my post. I don't speculate. If you want to drone on about how oppressed people could have flourished absent colonialism, be my guest.

@Alienbeing Nope. I think you've made my point by admitting that they are oppressed.

@redbai I did not make your point because:

1. I never said anyone was oppressed.
2. Even if oppressed, that does not help speculation.

You can't even speculate because absence of accomplishment compared to Europe is so vast that any such attempt would be wild speculation at best and void of fact.

Try harder to sound as if you made a case, you did not.

@redbai I want to clarify a position. If you said that racism is alive and well in the U.S. I would agree with you. If you said racism has significantly held back the Black population due to poor educational availability as opposed to white educational availability, I would agree with you.

My point in this discussion is that the original poster was only trying to say that European achievements should not be ignored. That is true irrespective of why other areas of the world may or may not have been ignored &/or mistreated.

What a load of bullshit. Must be nice to ignore the relevance of race and gender when nothing is threatening your life because of them. Not everyone enjoys your privilege.

Harriet Tubman did more than any bunch of OLD WHITE GUYS. All old white guys did was pass laws that they were forced into accepting because of changing dynamics all over the world. The idea that the only people relevant in the freedom of slaves in the United States is OLD WHITE GUYS is so insulting and ignorant. It's a blatantly pathetic to take credit for something they were FORCED into doing. America wouldn't have had a civil war if OLD WHITE GUYS hadn't attacked for the right to own people. The north didn't attack the south to free slaves so spare me. OLD WHITE GUYS in the north didn't go to war to stop slavery, they were attacked.

After said war it was OLD WHITE GUYS who were lynching black people at Sunday family picnics and burning down black towns. It was OLD WHITE GUYS who decided who gets rights and is protected by the law and then other OLD WHITE GUYS decided that black people didn't have rights OLD WHITE GUYS had to respect. Same OLD WHITE GUYS came up with mapping cities and redlining districts by race making their areas more valuable. Same OLD WHITE GUYS demanded school segregation right up to the 60's and 70's and some of those same OLD WHITE GUYS are still alive.

There is nothing to even imply that OLD WHITE GUYS were relevant in the movement to give women the right to vote. OLD WHITE GUYS did it out of social pressures they could no longer ignore and they fought desperately to delay it as long as possible. It's also mostly OLD WHITE GUYS who are championing taking away the right of a woman to an abortion. First time OLD WHITE GUYS get to take away a right instead of having to recognize it.

I won't bother to dignify the ridiculous argument that OLD WHITE GUYS made "significant contributions" to the Civil Rights movement while you ignore that it was OLD WHITE GUYS who were fighting the hardest to deny those same rights. Some of those OLD WHITE GUYS are still alive.

White men are not vilified because of their gender, skin color or age and to imply that all white men are is hyperbolic melodrama. If and when a white man is vilified it's because of whom they choose to associate themselves with and/or a demonstrated reluctance to do anything or recognize injustices in current events. Your inability to see a context where the BLM slogan is relevant is a demonstration of that narrow mindedness. I have no confidence in the least that you can see that it's about today and not some make believe past you imagine especially given your incredibly narrow perspective of who has been relevant in moving the rights of people forward in this country.

@redbai There were no doubt heroes (and villans) of every color though out human history. Harriet Tubman is one of my favorite heros.

I can see how attractive to you it might be to presume that some of the people responsible for positive progress in the world might have an attribute you dislike. But history is what it is. Before women could vote ONLY MEN could vote to give them that right. That is a fact, it is true whether you like it or not. For whatever reasons they had as individuals, as a group (majority) they voted to allow women to vote as equals fully realizing this was an irrevocable decision once women had the vote.

People are people. Equality is a HUMAN struggle. Any HUMAN denied his rights or dignity diminishes us all .... ALL of us!!

And yes, I will say it again; LIVES MATTER!!! If someone has to put a color or gender along with that statement, they have a prejudice that I can't help with and I don't want to participate in.

WHAT IS BULLSHIT .... is any time some one wants to distinguish one group of people from another based on their skin color, gender or ancestral history. People are people. We are all born into this world in the same way and made the same choices as to how and as what we are born (no choice at all). Differentiating people based on these choices is indeed pure unadulterated BULLSHIT and is the foundation of groups that claim ANY greater right or need based on these features.

Black Lives Matter BECAUSE ALL LIVES MATTER .... not instead, not less or more, but BECAUSE.

As for the rest of your diatribe .... I will not hold you responsible for what another person of the same skin tone has done, if you will allow me the same freedom and courtesy.

Get it?? Bet not!!

@Normanbites Women made it insufferably uncomfortable for men to not vote in the right for women to vote.
That you interpret all rights having come from the Holy White Man Created in the Image of God Himself is total horse shit.

@Normanbites The fact that OLD WHITE GUYS are working tirelessly to take away a woman's right to decide how her body can be used demonstrates that the powers that be are perfectly aware that rights doled out can also be taken away; nothing in politics is "irrevocable".

"And yes, I will say it again; LIVES MATTER!!!"

Who said that they don't and what's wrong with pointing out actions that demonstrate that for some people it doesn't appear that their lives do matter? I don't see where I held you responsible for anything so your implication is ridiculous unless you identify with the OLD WHITE GUYS who fought against all those things for which you gave credit to OLD WHITE GUYS.

@redbai It might be silly to make an alternative history out of a couple movies, but Free State of Jones and Judas and the Black Messiah both make me wonder what could have happened if poor whites and blacks had formed a coalition early after the Civil War in the South or whites did a better job in the 60s of embracing a common cause with leaders like Fred Hampton.

Seems the white planter aristocracy divided and conquered in the Reconstruction era and Hoover was successful in enacting his paranoia in the Civil Rights era. Sadly poor whites are easily drawn to racist tropes that keep them from finding common cause with the maligned Other (African American, Latino/a, etc) and act against their own socioeconomic interests. I suppose this view can be criticized for class reductionism. But from the Southern Strategy to Replacement Theory white people are exploitable via bigotry and fear to act in the interest of people treating them as mere political or culture war tumbleweeds.

@redbai I feel pretty good about this conversation in that I think progress toward a greater mutual understanding is being made.

However, your first paragraph causes me some dismay when you say, "The fact that OLD WHITE GUYS are working tirelessly to take away a woman's right to decide how her body can be used ....."

OK so lets take this case in point. There are OLD WHITE GALS on that side of the controversy too and OLD and YOUNG people of many colors as well. WHY are you saying it is only OLD WHITE GUYS?? And do you see how I might feel vilified by that notion?

As it happens, though I fit that description OLD, WHITE and MALE, I do support the notion of body autonomy. A person's body is their own. So you will find me in raging agreement with a woman's right to choose.

As for my "Giving credit" to any particular group of people ... I'm not intentionally ascribing any particular virtue to that group. I'm saying that the laws of the time were such that they had the power of the vote or of the majority, it was a fact of the time. I will also say the outcome was due to the fact that people are people regardless their outward features and happily in the cases I cited, the outcome was positive for the HUMAN struggle. It could have turned out worse, I'm glad it didn't.

@Normanbites There have always been women who back OLD WHITE GUYS (OWG) and willing to live under their rules if given a higher status than others. The same can be said for any other demographic that is not an OWG for as you say, people are people. But people are not all alike and serve different roles and some will wear a yoke on their neck if it's lighter than others have to wear. There is no question as to who is leading and who is following to anyone honestly trying to recognize the truth. So no, I don't see how you might be vilified for the notion unless you actually identify with those who fought against the rights you say were handed out by OWG.

@BufftonBeotch You think making men "insufferable uncomfortable" takes away their ability to vote the way they choose?? REALLY?? I find that to be an incredibly naive conclusion.

@redbai It's more simplistic than that. Some one says "OWG" are fighting against a woman's right to choose. And I'm just standing there obviously OLD, obviously WHITE, obviously a GUY .... and people aren't looking at me kindly. That's what I mean by feeling vilified.

If you MUST identify your villain as a collective, why not fundamentalist christian ... why OWG's??

The only problem I have with Old White Guys is that there are too few of them who understand that equality and democracy mean they don’t get to decide everything. I know I will never see that change in my lifetime, but hope that eventually they quit passing their prejudices on to their children.

@Normanbites We can make life insufferably uncomfortable for you decidedly unfuckable men again.

Just give us one good reason.

@BufftonBeotch Sorry, I have no such interest. I'll vote as I choose. (See what I mean?)

@Normanbites Deciding 8 year old girls should be breeding stock for their pedophile uncles and daddies is a reason.

@BufftonBeotch, @MsKathleen The more people that understand that the better, IMHO and that goes without regard to gender, color, age or nationality.

@BufftonBeotch A reason for what? And who is doing such a dastardly thing? And be specific, careful and truthful, this nation does have libel and slander laws.

@Normanbites I could be wrong, but I think what might get overlooked is that Black Lives Matter is an extension of “all lives matter” (aka universal human rights) that required to be pointed out by activists. It’s more “Black Lives Matter too!”. But this is perceived to be an affront to people who see BLM as reducing their status (aka “white privilege” ). I don’t see it as an affront but a reminder that sadly in this 21st century needs be said.

On the other hand Blue Lives Matter seems a “law and order” authoritarian dog whistle. Blue line bumper stickers often tend to correlate with other troublesome views. I for one think cops should be demilitarized. Otherwise they see us as enemy combatants in a war zone and that can’t end well for us.

@Normanbites I have no idea what you mean by people not looking at you kindly. There is no way to tell if what you "feel" is anything but your imagination driven by guilt without more information. If a person is not known for hanging out with people who are identified as taking away people's rights or limiting them based on arbitrary methodology like race or gender I don't understand why they should feel vilified.

If a person does identify with racist and sexist ideologies or find them benign then they have earned vilification as they are either participating in the manifestation of those concepts or simply allowing them to normalize from a lack of empathy towards those oppressed. Why shouldn't those who are negatively affected look at such a person as if they're part of the problem? Such a person certainly shouldn't be given any credit for the lessening of any suffering by way of those concepts manifestation.

@MsKathleen I used to enjoy the sport of boomer-bashing, but now realize my generation (Who song) sucks too. [politico.com]

Every day I become an older white guy who strives not to be “that guy”.

@Scott321 I understand your perspective and don't necessarily disagree. My introduction to the BLM moment had a different context. An Aunt, a very sweet little old lady asked what BLM met and she was told "Black Lives Matter". She responded with "Well of course they do, Dear. ALL lives matter." Then she was (IMHO) cruelly and inappropriately accosted with accusations of racism and all manner of vile prejudices.

This is how BLM introduced it's self time and time again. I found it offensive and frankly not forgivable I now see it as a form of racism in it's own right. All lives do matter and Black Lives matter BECAUSE all lives matter.

@redbai "... not looking at me kindly" .... accusatory looks like I did something wrong.

I do not condone sexist or racist ideologies. And in that light, assuming an OWG is a sexist or racist oppressor just because he is an OWG is just as sexist and racist as assuming a Black Man running in a neighborhood must have stolen something.

But thank you very little for trying to paint me that way. Could you put your brush away now?

@Scott321 Wondering if the “A” is for Apple or Anarchy…or perhaps you merit a Scarlet Letter, lol?

@Normanbites I believe that was my point.

@Normanbites You are actually threatening me with a lawsuit now?

Come at me you filthy idiot.

@Normanbites Since no one has ever reasonably claimed that all OWG are sexist or racist oppressor just because they are an OWG I'll pass by that strawman.

So people you don't know are looking at you accusingly out of nowhere? Just walking down the street minding your own business garners these looks? I don't know where you live but it sounds like you live in a land of nuts. I remember giving two options in my last post and purposely not assigning either to you but apparently you've picked the latter. That's not me accusing you, that's you accepting a mantle and blaming the fit on someone else.

@Normanbites Because there is such a history of black cops and black male citizens routinely being allowed to murder little white boys on the street with their Skittles.

@redbai @BufftonBeotch So now you two have devolved to gaslighting ... so much for any attempt at rational conversation. Have a nice day .... or not, IDGAF.

@Normanbites I don't think you know what "gaslighting" is but believe it's something you can accuse people of in an attempt to run away from your fallacious reasoning.

@Normanbites But you are fine with agreeing that China never developed a worthy civilization. They had a fully developed culture when your beloved Aryans were still eating raw rats.

@redbai "fallacious reasoning about what exactly?" Please be specific, I'll wait .....

@BufftonBeotch Yeah, you seem to be having your own conversation.. so bye!!

@Normanbites Fallacious reasoning about what?

1. The assumption that OWG were significant in getting non-OWG rights while ignoring that it was the OWG who denied those rights in the first place and the forces trying to keep them away from others.

2. The idea that all OWG are vilified whether they are racist, sexist or homophobic or not.

3. An unreasonable concern that people don't look at you kindly and your assumptions as to why.

@redbai Do you realize your #2 contradicts your #1 assertion?

And with your #1 assertion are you saying that during the civil war an overwhelming army of POC came to force OWG's to accept POC as free men? If so your understanding of civil war history is quite warped my friend.

Let's go further onto women's suffrage. Are you now claiming that POC joined with women to out vote the voting male population of the time? REALLY??!?!

As for #3 I can have concerns about anything I want to be concerned about and your opinions of how correct they are matter not at all.

Your reasoning does not mesh with obvious fact and seems very muddled.

@Normanbites See how you made up some bullshit and assigned it to me so that you could call my POV warped? That's fallacious reasoning called setting up a strawman. I said nothing of the sort, you set up a strawman, attributed it to me and then pretend to judge my state of mind as "weird". Pure unadulterated bullshit.

You did the same thing in reference to women's suffrage. I said nothing of the sort but somehow you apparently feel I need to justify the bullshit strawmen you set up.

You are wrong. Unreasonable concerns may cause you to do something unreasonable in the public. All mass shooters have "unreasonable concerns"l. Your assumption that your unreasonable concerns are personal and don't affect the lives of others is nothing but self serving bullshit. You can't even put the concern into words. You feel it's just wrong in your life that people don't look at you "kindly" as if the general population has some responsibility to make you feel good by looking at you a certain way. And then the hubris to feel slighted because of it? Who the fuck are you that people should look at you "kindly"?

"Your reasoning does not mesh with obvious fact and seems very muddled."

Of course that bullshit you posted is muddled. Glad I wasn't who wrote it and don't share the incredibly stupid ideas expressed.

The only way #1 & #2 contradict each other is if you can demonstrate that the majority of OWG were not the the people denying rights all along. The idea that OWG were forced to do something eliminates any value they may want to claim as a group for anything about giving people rights they originally denied.

Since I know OWG who don't feel vilified it is very easy for me to separate 1 & 2. In your neck of the woods maybe you know many OWG who react positively or apathetic towards racism, sexism and anti-LBGTQ rights making it more difficult for you to have a broader perspective.

@redbai
YOU are the one that said this was fallacious:
The assumption that OWG were significant in getting non-OWG rights while ignoring that it was the OWG who denied those rights in the first place and the forces trying to keep them away from others.

Which clearly implies the Civil War .... what? Didn't even happen?? No significant contribution by OWG's really??

YOU are the one that said this was fallacious:
The idea that all OWG are vilified whether they are racist, sexist or homophobic or not.

You already said that OWG's made no significant contribution to getting non-OWG rights .... HOW is that NOT a vilification?? If you see that another human is denied the same rights as you and you do nothing significant HOW is that not vile??

During the Civil War OWG's fought often brother against brother to set the nation on a path to equality and you choose to summarily IGNORE it like it didn't even happen and they made no sacrifice at all!! Yes, what your ancestors were experiencing at the time was beyond insufferable, but to IGNORE the efforts and sacrifices of people who were not your ancestors to try to set things right .... to me that itself is VILE.

But frankly, I think this discussion is getting ridiculous. We are members of the family of man and there is only one "race", human. Though you are my brother, any time you insist that one group of humans is separate and distinct from another, I think you do us all a disservice. As do I when I slip and do the same.

This family of man has a long twisted, sick and tortuous history. My hope is we can learn to put it aside and work for a better day.

@Normanbites OWG in the north didn't fight the civil war to free slaves they did it in retrebution for being attacked by the south in an attempt to leave the Union. In fact Lincoln, the head OWG of the time said the following:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

His goal had nothing to do with freeing slaves it was about saving the Union like the large majority of OWG of the time. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation for self-serving reasons, i.e. hoping that the enslaved in the south would uprise and cause more confusion in the south.

"You already said that OWG's made no significant contribution to getting non-OWG rights .... HOW is that NOT a vilification?"

Are you one of the people who fought to keep people enslaved? If not why should you feel vilified unless of course you agree with what they were doing and voice it publicly?

@redbai Respectfully, I am done with this conversation. I did realize an error in my thinking, but it was nothing you pointed out.

My Error: All the participants, the slaves, the non-slaves, the slave owners .... ALL were my ancestors. Though their trials, tragedies, tribulations and errors this generation of man was born.

Our challenge is to do better. So, no, I won't take your bait this time. Catch me on a different day and I might take you up on it ..... I am human after all.

@Normanbites Demonstrating that you are wrong is not "bait". But I guess you needed something to feed that id so that you can believe you've made valid points. Bye!

@redbai This (Norman) seems to like to abandon conversations he is losing.

@BufftonBeotch @redbai ... Meh!! Sometimes one comes to a realization that some people's perspectives are simply best left in a rear view mirror.

I'm movin on!!

@redbai And the original sin that the founders of the Constitution allowed and that made an eventual bloody war inevitable was the 3/5 ths compromise. Which allowed slave states to count human property as citizens to gain congressional representation but to give no more rights to those people than cattle.

Or what Persia could have been had not a religious nutter squashed the learning and science advancement that once made Persia the intellectual leader of the time in that area of the world.

@silverotter11 That too. I think there are many closet Atheists in Islamic countries.

@TheMiddleWay [theiroquoisstory.weebly.com]

@TheMiddleWay [history.com]

@TheMiddleWay We'll just conveniently ignore the fact that the French philosophers came up with the idea after having interacted with the Iroquois for almost 200 years and the fact that "[i]n general, [the Iroquois Confederacy] might be compared to our own system of independent state and federal jurisdiction, and in fact, the Iroquois recommended their system as a model at the outbreak of the American Revolution."

[legendsofamerica.com]

Kind of like giving Columbus credit for "discovering" America when there were already people here.

@TheMiddleWay So just ignore the familiarities between the two governments and the fact that the French philosophers didn't have the idea until after France interacted with the Iroquois Confederation for over 200 years. Ignore the fact that Americans also were trading with the Iroquois for a couple of hundred years observing the Confederation. You appear to believe that the dialog should just focus on one difference that can be explained away by social norms as it would be ridiculous for them to be exact matches given the social evolution of both in such different environments.

Is it your argument that the French philosophers couldn't possibly have created a derivative based on what the Iroquois were doing after interacting with them for over a century and being well informed of their government structure? That French philosophers were aware of the Iroquois government and simply ignored it in developing their ideas? Wouldn't that be incredibly ignorant?

@TheMiddleWay So it is entirely plausible that the US government is a derivative of the Iroquois form of government.

@TheMiddleWay Really? [legendsofamerica.com]
Branch 1: Seneca and Mohawk tribes & Oneida and Cayuga tribes. A two house legislature.
Branch 2: Onondaga Tribe, could veto or break the ties in the two house legislature.
Branch 3: Female leaders of the tribes picked those who would serve in Branch 1 from their tribe. They could vote but not serve in either of the Houses. So, another totally different branch serving an independent service to the government.

As I said before, differences because of social evolution but the fundamentals are there.

@TheMiddleWay So you acknowledge that my description is valid it just uses different syntax. That sounds like using a fallacy for an argument. Not using the same syntax is not the same as saying that it's not recognizable as the same intent, a governmental paradigm designed to balance power between opposing factions. It is also feasibly that my interpretation is correct and so is there's. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

I, nor the OP ever claimed that they had a "judicial, executive, and legislative branch", that's just a governmental priority which you inserted into the dialog in an attempt to define a differentiation. I countered with the fact that it was a difference of social priorities and nothing more. The three branch dynamic worked in both scenarios regardless of how the branches are defined.

Earlier in the article the creation of the "complex political arrangement" was early as 1142 and no later than 1450 depending on the researcher. So at least 40 years (at least two generations) before Europe even knew there was an America. Then after Europe found America and interacted with the indian cultures their philosophers "discovered" a three branch political structure. What about that demonstrates that the European version is not a derivative given that the only difference is what each culture decided would be paramount government responsibilities in their particular society?

It's ridiculous to assume the patriarchal society of Europe would give the power of deciding who would be in their legislatures to women. They would do so based on their own social evolution where men made such decisions just like they would any other aspect of a governmental paradigm they may choose to use. But the use of three different branches to maintain a balance of power is the foundation of both the Iroquois and European paradigms, the Iroquois did it first and the Europeans didn't even entertain the idea philosophically until after interacting with the Iroquois.

@TheMiddleWay Okay, this is where you disingenuously define the OP's intent as he doesn't mention those three branches or you're purposely ignoring the fact that the phrase "three branches of government" does not define the branches. The OP did not name any branches, you inserted some. That's you assigning values, not the OP. Kind of self serving if you ask me.

What the heck does "draw from the same source of words" mean and how does that demonstrate that I didn't define three distinct branches of government?

@TheMiddleWay The concept that three branches of government helps balance power. Specifically:
Branch 1: Seneca and Mohawk tribes & Oneida and Cayuga tribes. A two house legislature.
Branch 2: Onondaga Tribe, could veto or break the ties in the two house legislature.
Branch 3: Female leaders of the tribes picked those who would serve in Branch 1 from their tribe. They could vote but not serve in either of the Houses. So, another totally different branch serving an independent service to the government.

@TheMiddleWay Interesting how you don't attempt to demonstrate that there aren't 3 branches or how the one's I defined aren't branches. Almost as if you can't do so and avoiding doing so gives your position validity if you ignore the similarities. The fact that you cannot find "a single professional historian" to use the same syntax that I use demonstrates nothing except others use different words.

@TheMiddleWay The OP mentioned 3 branches of government. So obviously others saw the connection. I think it's kind of sad and pathetic that unless some historian that you agree with makes a statement you refuse to accept a scenario which fits the dynamics regardless of it's obvious veracity. As if historians miss nothing and anything they don't posit with specific detail is irrelevant. Didn't know historians were omniscient thanks for the imaginary information.

@TheMiddleWay What a load of crap. "Professional historians" lied for generations about what happened to POC in the US. The idea that they are some kind of arbiter of the truth in relation to history is ridiculous on its face.

And I'm fine with my position. I've laid out the three branches of the Iroquois government and you apparently cannot refute the three branches existed, just that they aren't the same as the US used which no one claimed.

@TheMiddleWay Since I never said as much it's kind of moot. There were obviously three branches and nothing that you have presented demonstrates that three branches didn't exist. Given that you've already admitted that there is a similarity in relation to the federal and local government dynamic, the three branches existing demonstrates that the American model of government is derivative.

@TheMiddleWay "In denying professionals, you are purporting greater expertise than the professionals"

I didn't know you asked any historians about the three branches. What professional historian has denied there were three branches? Please provide their names and quote what they say. Otherwise I'm not saying anything about whether or not I am a better arbiter. That's you assigning words and intent to me.

"there were obviously no three branches"

Funny, I named them and you haven't been able to demonstrate that those that I named didn't exist. Why do you think I'm trying to convince you? I'm simply pointing out misinformation to those who may read. Whether or not you change your mind is irrelevant.

@TheMiddleWay Why am I not surprised that you use a non-governmental paradigm to make your point as if I did the same? It's a bit disingenuous but when people get desperate...

@TheMiddleWay See how you used the holy trinity as inspiration and tried to pin it on me? That's dishonest as I said nothing of the sort and the holy trinity is not a governmental structure so it's also a very poor analogy.

The apparent reason you're using the trinity is because you cannot demonstrate that my definition of the three branches to be incorrect so you avoid addressing them. FTR, the Iroquois did not have access to the Bible when they created their three branch government given that it started before Europe found America.

[legendsofamerica.com]

"Some historians believe the tribes came together as early as 1142 while others contend it was formed in about 1450."

Given that Europe mistakenly found America in 1492, two generations after the latest the Confederation was founded I think it's safe to say they did not use the Bible for their governmental paradigm.

I guess it's plausible regarding a French philosopher, but using your standard, does any historian make that connection? No. But there is documentation that demonstrates that the Iroquois suggested their form of government to the Americans.

@TheMiddleWay So when did the original 5 create the confederation? This might be a shock to you but the addition of the last one is not the date in which the confederation was created anymore than the addition of Hawaii defines the creation of America. Let's see what the Cayuga Nation, a member of the confederation says about when the confederation was started:

[cayuganation-nsn.gov]

"In the 12th century, the Cayuga Nation, along with the Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk Nations united under the Great Law of Peace to form the Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse) Confederacy in order to end inter-tribal fighting and bring a sustainable peace to the land. "

So how did they know what was in the Bible in the 12th century? So much for that point unless you're claiming to know their history better than they do.

Also from the Wiki page you provided regarding the influence of the document:

"Franklin's Albany Plan is also believed to have been influenced by his understanding of Iroquois government. John Rutledge of South Carolina, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, is said to have read lengthy tracts of Six Nations law to the other framers, beginning with the words "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..."[36] In October 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Concurrent Resolution 331 to recognize the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the American Constitution and Bill of Rights."

So I guess the framers of the Constitution studied what the Iroquois were doing and Franklin even went and lived among them to observe how their government worked.

@TheMiddleWay Again, back to the fact that the syntax you want isn't being used which is ridiculous as they aren't the same society so there's no reason they would be using the same syntax.

I did not deny Montigeau as I have said that Montigeau quite possibly could have gotten the idea as an educated man in France being aware of a major trading partner with France and their governmental paradigm.

You have no more idea as to whether or not the Iroquois believed they had three branches of government than you did about when they were created (something you ignored being wrong about). I defined 3 branches of there government and you have yet to explain why it doesn't constitute 3 branches.

@TheMiddleWay Please demonstrate how you know "there is no record of the Iroquois considering their form of government to be 3 branched". Are you aware of everything written on the subject?

I broke nothing, I included the power of the women to select who would be their representative as the third branch. You know that because you created another post that states that. Also, the fact that there is historical evidence of Benjamin Franklin going to the Iroquois to study their governmental structure and created the Albany Plan, a predecessor of the constitution, based on those visits demonstrates a much more relevant connection than having read a book from a French philosopher. The fact that there is historical evidence of another founder having "read lengthy tracts of Six Nations law to the other framers" is also relevant in relation to it being a source.

"Yet there is nothing from the Iroquis(sic), the founding fathers, or any modern historian that validates your 3-part assignation." that you chose to acknowledge. I'm fine with that. I've defined three parts and you can't explain why my definition is not 3 parts.

@TheMiddleWay Given that I never claimed to have such info, asking me is ridiculous and unless you're aware of everything written on the subject you certainly aren't a viable resource either. So you cannot know "there is no record of the Iroquois considering their form of government to be 3 branched", you're assuming it to facilitate your comments.

@TheMiddleWay So it's no longer that it doesn't exist, it's that the knowledge of two people, not well versed in the subject, don't contain it. Boy did those goalposts move.

@TheMiddleWay

1. "no evidence presented between us that the Iroquois themselves thought of their system as three branched."

Beowolfsfriend in the other thread you created said, "I taught some of this, and, yes, I, and many others, believe there is a connection." in response to question "Is the Iroquis Great Peace the inspiration for the USA 3 branches of government?"

So I guess he and his friends are on my side. He said he actually taught the subject so he would be more qualified than you or I. I find it intriguing how you qualified that statement so that you could ignore his comments. Kind of implies you knew what he said and what it meant in augmenting my claims.

2. "No evidence that the founding fathers derived their three branches from the Iroquois."

So I guess you're ignoring what Beowolfsfriend said.

3. "Plenty of evidence that the founding fathers derived at their three branches from montereau."

Which you have not presented except to make a claim, so "plenty of evidence" must be a prediction of a future action on your part to provide such evidence.

4. "No evidence that montaru got his ideas from the Iroquois. He never left france, never lived among the iroquois."

Oh. Didn't you know that France was as civilized as any other European country and a major trading partner at the time with the Iroquois. French philosophers knew how to read and have conversations about places they've never visited. This means that it is entirely plausible that Montereau knew of the governmental paradigm being used in some far off land without having to have actually been there.

@TheMiddleWay Oh, so the word "connection" has some other meaning than "having a causal or logical relation or sequence" i.e. in the connection of two ideas? Can you please define the other definition so that we're on the same page?

Ah, so you didn't notice the "I, and many others" part of his response to your query? FTR, the "many others" is who I was referring to as his friends. but they maybe simply other historians in which he's had this dialog. It's probable that he's speaking of other qualified people on the subject else why bring them up?

Wow you must be desperate. Telling someone to go google something is as pathetic a response I've ever heard. It's the equivalent of telling someone to go on a wild goose chase.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I don't have to go to probable. I never said he did get his idea from the Iroquois, just that he could have been aware of the information given that it would have been available (and FTR, he could have gotten the information from someone who didn't identify the Iroquoi as the origin). I would assume a person writing a book on governments would have read about and discussed a multitude of governmental paradigms with a wide range of people if they wanted to do a good job on their book and there's no reason to believe that he couldn't have come across the Iroquois paradigm in that research.

But hey, you might be right. Maybe he was a racist and refused ideas from non-white peoples. You want to fall on racism as a reason go ahead. I should point out that at least two founders did consider what you call the "savages" government. Franklin found it so interesting he went into that "savage" environment and studied it and wrote a document for governing based on it. John Rutledge is said to have read Iroquois law to the other framers to give them ideas on how to govern. Apparently not all people considered the Iroquois savages but it's telling that you introduce the word to define them.

@TheMiddleWay There you go thinking I give a shit about your actions or beliefs.

The first people in the US did fine for thousands of years. By most remaining evidence even very advanced cultures. Genocide erases a lot, though. So convenient.