CDZ Crash Course in U.S. History -- Economics, immigration, race, and class

[Ringel05]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

The best book I have found for everyone to get up to speed is this one:

J.M. Roberts, "History Of The World," Penguin Books.

He covers everything from prehistory to UBL and Muslim extremism.

Read it in college, it a good basis to move on from depending on which area one wants to study.

 

[Ringel05]

Until college I had never studied Asian history, so it was nice to get out of European history...

Unfortunately I only studied Asian history in general, my focus was primarily European and American history.

My focus was primarily ancient history of the Mediterranean and Near East -- Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria.

But I covered American History as well for a Humanities requirement in college.

I have had to read about Asian history on the Internet in Wiki.

I also have a world history book which covers Asian history in various sections.

I did some more in-depth study of Japan during the Great Pacific War (WWII in their vernacular) but not nearly in-depth enough to make me an expert.

Japan is a case study in local militarism during their own industrial revolution.

Japan started out as isolationist, but was forced by the USA to accept foreign trade.

Japan used this then as an opportunity for technological development. The issue is similar to modern China as well.

Then the Japanese leadership realized that their island nation was want of many necessary natural resources so they looked to Manchuria as a source and took it by force.

None of the major world powers cared what Japan did in Asia, so Japan learned that they could get away with anything.

With Europe then mired in war against Adolf, Asia was free for Japan's taking. And that's what they did.

The stupidest thing that Japan ever did was follow Yamamoto's suggesting of attacking Pearl Harbor.

Had they NOT done that, they would be a world superpower by now, and instead of there being a cold war between the USA and China, it would be between the USA and Japan now.

Since WW2, Japan has merely been playing a speculative game of financial manipulation which is hamstringing their own nation. The population of Japan is aging and they are on the verge of a retirement crisis due to their low birth rates and low immigration rates, same as China now is as well.

Now you are up to speed.

Actually Yamamoto was against attacking the US unless our fleet could be completely destroyed at Pearl including our aircraft carriers which is what he planned for, he believed that would hamstring the US making us impotent in the Pacific. He also knew that an invasion of the US mainland would be difficult at best.

"Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices."

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikiquote

Both the US and Britain had a raw materials embargo against Japan in the 1930s for their aggression in Manchuria, the Japanese militarists saw no other option than striking the US and Britain to further their imperial ambitions, ergo, Pearl Harbor.

As for Japan being "forced" to accept foreign trade you need to do some more in-depth study........

Milestones: 1830–1860 - Office of the Historian

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Anyone else believe that people like the OP constantly looking down their noses at everyone else and telling them how they should think is the genesis for all that is wrong in this country?

 

[Disir]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

Ringel, my kid watches Crash. It's geared for high school students.

That's what I figured but unfortunately the instructor's modern bias is interwoven with the material, a common failing far too many history teachers have. Granted, teaching history as the dry subject matter it really is would bore most students to tears so his approach at least adds a degree of "modern relevance" to keep kids interested.

It wouldn't be dry if there weren't so many anal retentive parents. OTH what's a good age to explain exactly what drawn and quartered means?

I don't know if your familiar with ERB. This is a new one:



My son got a kick out of ERB. It's a middle school thang. He moved into Sheinkin. Sheinkin used to write history textbooks.
Steve Sheinkin » Books

He and his friends go into overtime studying. They came into Crash and a couple of others and some podcasts. They study and then listen to it when there is a test or sometimes just because they are interested.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Anyone else believe that people like the OP constantly looking down their noses at everyone else and telling them how they should think is the genesis for all that is wrong in this country?

7700 times in a few short months, you have shared your OPINION (for what it's worth) with those reading on here.

The OP on the other hand, shares links, articles, studies and then shares his opinion.

But you think he is what's wrong with America eh? How you figure that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

BTW none of the Founders had their own non-profit Foundation collecting contributions from foreign government in exchange for political favors

 

[320 Years of History]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

 

[Bush92]

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

The United States of America was built on sensible, legal, immigrationl and the brothers and siestas brought from Africa. How can you eat without all that flavor from everything. We are the greatest nation on earth. Man how can you cook without that connection.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing beats actually going to college and leaning all these things at an accredited school with mainstream edited textbooks.

Do colleges even offer an American history survey course that would be analogous to "Crash Course?" I suppose some must (I'm feeling to lazy to look at some to find out), but I have no idea of why they would, that is, unless taking an overview of American history isn't among the graduation requirements for all students.

My kids' colleges don't offer a survey of U.S. history, although they do offer what, in my day, we called "EWC" which was Western civilization from Mesopotamia to WWII. I only know what courses my kids' schools offer because I looked at the types of courses the schools offered once they told me to whom I needed to write a check.

Sidebar Question:

Why do kids feel like they must apply to so many schools? For a time, I thought my two oldest kids may have been applying to a bunch of schools just so they could say they got in. I'm still not convinced that wasn't the case. Is that a "thing" among high schoolers?

• Do most college admissions departments and/or high school advisors not just tell kids whether they can realistically expect to gain admission at "this or that" school?
• Do folks not ask?

End of sidebar.

 

[GaryDog]

Anyone else believe that people like the OP constantly looking down their noses at everyone else and telling them how they should think is the genesis for all that is wrong in this country?

I think its the anti-education and anti-intellectualism positions that are destroying this country, such as the one embodied in your post. Many have a preconceived view regarding events in history (and sometimes a blatantly false understanding of the exact events) that color their perception of what's happening now. Some examples include current views of race relations and their fallacious background in terms of understanding how divergent the Asian/Hispanic/African ethnic histories in the U.S. were. E.g. "Asians are doing fine, what's wrong with blacks???" belies ignorance regarding how Asians and Africans "migrated" here (hint: One was voluntary migration, one was not) and were treated after they arrived (one group was shunned and ignored, another was very much a focal point of the white power structure in a very negative way).

 

[GaryDog]

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

BTW none of the Founders had their own non-profit Foundation collecting contributions from foreign government in exchange for political favors

Feel free to abstain from the discussion then.

 

[GaryDog]

One of my favorite history courses in college dealt with Latin American history. It's so exceedingly interesting the extent to which our involvement there transformed the continent, and in turn transformed our own culture in terms of migration, drug policy, etc.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

BTW none of the Founders had their own non-profit Foundation collecting contributions from foreign government in exchange for political favors

Feel free to abstain from the discussion then.

So you can continue to lie, misrepresent and spew all over American History?

No, thanks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

 

[phoenyx]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

 

[phoenyx]

One of my favorite history courses in college dealt with Latin American history. It's so exceedingly interesting the extent to which our involvement there transformed the continent, and in turn transformed our own culture in terms of migration, drug policy, etc.

Did you read a book from Eduardo Galeano called The Open Veins of Latin America? I'm not saying it was perfect, but I found it to be quite educational. So did former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He gave Obama a copy in Spanish (he should have gotten him an english copy in my view), but regardless as to whether Obama ever got a copy in english and read it, the book got some much needed attention, rising from 54,295th most popular book on Amazon.com on one day to #2 on the list a day later.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties. That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

 

[phoenyx]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

He didn't say the American -Revolution- was "rich, white guys, etc". He said "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show". As far as I know that summation is true. Granted, the white guys in question were not the same guys before the revolution as they were afterwards, and this is a point that the video does elaborate on after the quote you mention.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties.

I don't know about that. Here's an excerpt from an old article in the New York Times:
**
''The common wisdom among historians is that the people who wrote the Constitution had no concept of the Indian way of life,'' said John Mohawk, a Seneca from the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation near Buffalo, and the organizer, with Professor Lyons, of the project. ''But what made the colonists American as opposed to English was their experiences with the Indians.''

As proof, they cite records kept by the colonists. An Onondaga named Canassatego suggested that the colonists form a nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy during a meeting of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania in Lancaster on June 25, 1744.

According to the director of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Parker, the council minutes show that Canassatego urged the colonists to ''receive these your brethren with open arms; unite yourselves to them in the covenant chain and be you with them as one body and one soul.'' Range of Models

In the years that followed, the colonists went from one meeting to another, looking for unions they should study, according to the executive director of the New York State Bicentennial Commission, Stephen L. Schechter.

''They contemplated examples from Europe, examples from Greco-Roman times, examples from the Bible,'' he said. ''And they also looked at Native American examples, particularly the Iroquois Confederacy.''**

Source: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

There are differences between the American Constitution and the Iroquois, to be sure, but they sound relatively minor:
Iroquois and the Founding Fathers | Teachinghistory.org

That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

No one's forcing you to participate here ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

He didn't say the American -Revolution- was "rich, white guys, etc". He said "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show". As far as I know that summation is true. Granted, the white guys in question were not the same guys before the revolution as they were afterwards, and this is a point that the video does elaborate on after the quote you mention.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties.

I don't know about that. Here's an excerpt from an old article in the New York Times:
**
''The common wisdom among historians is that the people who wrote the Constitution had no concept of the Indian way of life,'' said John Mohawk, a Seneca from the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation near Buffalo, and the organizer, with Professor Lyons, of the project. ''But what made the colonists American as opposed to English was their experiences with the Indians.''

As proof, they cite records kept by the colonists. An Onondaga named Canassatego suggested that the colonists form a nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy during a meeting of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania in Lancaster on June 25, 1744.

According to the director of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Parker, the council minutes show that Canassatego urged the colonists to ''receive these your brethren with open arms; unite yourselves to them in the covenant chain and be you with them as one body and one soul.'' Range of Models

In the years that followed, the colonists went from one meeting to another, looking for unions they should study, according to the executive director of the New York State Bicentennial Commission, Stephen L. Schechter.

''They contemplated examples from Europe, examples from Greco-Roman times, examples from the Bible,'' he said. ''And they also looked at Native American examples, particularly the Iroquois Confederacy.''**

Source: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

There are differences between the American Constitution and the Iroquois, to be sure, but they sound relatively minor:
Iroquois and the Founding Fathers | Teachinghistory.org

That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

No one's forcing you to participate here ...

I'm well aware of the influence the Iroquois (I forgot the name they called themselves) had on some of the Founders (I think Franklin in particular) The Iroquois had women leaders, we didn't.

But it's fairly obvious the biggest influence on the Founders in establishing our government was - Rome. Whatever other influences there were pales in compariosn

 

[phoenyx]

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

He didn't say the American -Revolution- was "rich, white guys, etc". He said "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show". As far as I know that summation is true. Granted, the white guys in question were not the same guys before the revolution as they were afterwards, and this is a point that the video does elaborate on after the quote you mention.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties.

I don't know about that. Here's an excerpt from an old article in the New York Times:
**
''The common wisdom among historians is that the people who wrote the Constitution had no concept of the Indian way of life,'' said John Mohawk, a Seneca from the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation near Buffalo, and the organizer, with Professor Lyons, of the project. ''But what made the colonists American as opposed to English was their experiences with the Indians.''

As proof, they cite records kept by the colonists. An Onondaga named Canassatego suggested that the colonists form a nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy during a meeting of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania in Lancaster on June 25, 1744.

According to the director of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Parker, the council minutes show that Canassatego urged the colonists to ''receive these your brethren with open arms; unite yourselves to them in the covenant chain and be you with them as one body and one soul.'' Range of Models

In the years that followed, the colonists went from one meeting to another, looking for unions they should study, according to the executive director of the New York State Bicentennial Commission, Stephen L. Schechter.

''They contemplated examples from Europe, examples from Greco-Roman times, examples from the Bible,'' he said. ''And they also looked at Native American examples, particularly the Iroquois Confederacy.''**

Source: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

There are differences between the American Constitution and the Iroquois, to be sure, but they sound relatively minor:
Iroquois and the Founding Fathers | Teachinghistory.org

That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

No one's forcing you to participate here ...

I'm well aware of the influence the Iroquois (I forgot the name they called themselves) had on some of the Founders (I think Franklin in particular)

Cool

The Iroquois had women leaders, we didn't.

Yep, there were definitely some differences.

But it's fairly obvious the biggest influence on the Founders in establishing our government was - Rome. Whatever other influences there were pales in comparison

What draws you to that conclusion?