Hey John,
Actually what I said was that the theory "became popular" in the early
70s. I know that it dates farther back, but from I know the early 70's
produced (for some unknown reason) a groundswell of support for the idea,
which died down after some NY school added the theory to their curriculum.
I know that the general feeling of legal academia might night impress
you (b/c of Pirsig this forum has strange
intellectual/anti-formal-intellectual tone). I just thought it was worth
pointing out to you that most of the experts who spend their lives studying
this sort of thing don't buy it. Oh well... it hardly seems important now
anyway.
rick
----- Original Message -----
From: John Beasley <beasley@austarnet.com.au>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: MD Be thankful it wasn't your sister
> Rick, Roger,
>
> I couldn't get hold of the book I wanted referring to the Iroquios, so I
> just emailed the author and now have more data than I can ever want to
> research.
>
> Rick, you say in a more recent post "Unless I missed something very large,
> the general feeling of legal academia is against the theory. This is not
to
> disregard author's like the one quoted in Oisin's post from a few days
ago,
> it's just to say that supporters of the theory are generally a very small
> minority.
> Unfortunately, whether a particular version of history is revisionist,
> or whether the historians simply got it wrong the first time, is usually
an
> impossible debate."
>
> Having studied history myself many years ago, I agree with you that
pinning
> down the 'truth' in matters historical is a thankless task. However your
> earlier suggestion that this theory is a recent emergent from NY state
seems
> quite wrong. I have seen quotations from Lewis Henry Morgan in 1851, and
> Herbert Lloyd in 1902, to name just two, which clearly point in this
> direction. These quotations can be checked in Bruce E. Johansen's 1982
book,
> Forgotten Founders, which is available in full on the internet.
>
> Johansen has written several books on this theme, as has Donald Grinde,
and
> they have also collaborated on 'Debating Democracy: The Iroquois Legacy of
> Freedom' 1996 which covers the history of the debate until then. By late
> 1995 there were at least 450 published items relevant to this topic.
>
> Now I don't intend to spend the next year of my life reading all this. I
> would make the point, though, that there are reputable historians
involved,
> and also some shonky ones. That this version of history is not in accord
> with the "general feeling of legal academia" is hardly convincing
> refutation, to me, and given the parlous state of much academia almost a
> recommendation. However, I leave it to others to follow the argument
further
> if they desire. Putting Johansen's name into a search engine will find
> numerous references.
>
> John B
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:32 BST