Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1491
The Atlantic ^ | 4-2-2002 | Charles C. Mann

Posted on 04/03/2002 2:41:45 PM PST by blam

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-156 next last
To: Freetus
pullitzer prize, schmullitzer prize. Arafat won the nobel too. They just gave poitier an oscar for no reason. If you really think there was ever anything in the new world that compared to the spanish empire, you're bonkers. I don't care what some schmullitzer winner says. Use your own brain and judge the facts yourself.
61 posted on 04/04/2002 2:00:14 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre; Freetus
I see more facts in his post than in yours
62 posted on 04/04/2002 2:10:12 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
"I should admit that I know almost nothing of south america"

Yep!

Here's a clue. When Cortez conquered the Aztecs, there was NO SPANISH EMPIRE yet. There was barely even Spain, the country, much less, an Empire, at this point. I can't seem to understand why it is such a confusing matter for you to accept what is the reality, according to EVERY BOOK OF HISTORY ON THE SUBJECT, including the journal of the conquest itself written by Cortez's chronicler, an eye witness, which for the life of me, escapes my mind as to the title right now.

Check this page out if you want the most basic synopsis

http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/spanish_conquest.html

63 posted on 04/04/2002 2:22:17 PM PST by Freetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Freetus;nicotinefiend;sawsalimb;Focault's Pendulum
"Part of the reason these things as you say are true is because there were no suitable animals to domesticate. What were they going to have, pack chickens?(lol) "

Anthropologist, Marvin Harris (bless his soul), in his book Cannibals And Kings," speculates that a lot of the ritual killing in South America was in fact done to provide protein due to the lack of large animals as a protein source. The Carib Indian word for roasted human arm is BARBECUE.

64 posted on 04/04/2002 2:30:52 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: blam
This theory that the rain forest is the result of human endevour is gaining alot of ground. It was recently given a prominent discussion in Archaelogy magazine. I can't remember where I saw this, but I remember hearing once about the same claim being made as to the "Great American Wilderness" You know, all the environmentalists get us on their side in grade school by telling us how the evil white man shot all the buffalos and destroyed the pristine and amazing zone of wildlife that existed in the heartland of America. But it turns out that this "wild expanse" was only a function of warring human tribes. It was a massive game expanse that they shared. The wars that Indians fought against one another ensured that there was a massive no-man's land between the warring tribes. Thus, the pristine wilderness was nothing more than the result of human activity, completely shaped and formed by humans. Even when something exists as a "wilderness" it is only because "man" has defined it as so.
65 posted on 04/04/2002 2:31:32 PM PST by Freetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Your name says it all. Facts are more important than reason, right?

Memorize names and dates and leave the thinking to the authors of the assigned reading materials. Parrot their conclusions back to the teacher and get an A. BRAVO, little johnny, you're "smarter" than your peers.

Am I wrong? I hope so. But I doubt it. I've been to school, I know how it works.
66 posted on 04/04/2002 2:32:17 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
"Absolute trash. For the most part, the new world was populated by savage cannibals that were lucky to live 30 years before succumbing to the elements, or to their enemies. "

The 9,500 year old Kennewick Man skeleton as well as (probably his cousin) Spirit Cave Man indicate that they were both in their mid forties when they died. All the skeletons of the males in this grouping of people indicate that most died of a blow to the left side of the head. All the female skeletons found were no older than 24 years of age. (a puzzle to James Chatters)

67 posted on 04/04/2002 2:41:07 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Freetus
"When Cortez conquered the Aztecs, there was NO SPANISH EMPIRE yet. "


Is that what they teach in schools nowdays? How old are you?? Yes I admit I am no expert on south america, but I know hogwash when I see it. Apparently you do not.
68 posted on 04/04/2002 2:41:41 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
I'm in my 30's. I lived in Mexico for 4 months. I have been to all these places.

Spain was merely four backwater provinces when Isabella began the reunification of Spain. A short 50 years later, and Spain ruled half of the earth, no question. But at the time that Cortez was poking around and conquering the Aztecs through his wit and luck, these things had not occured yet. In fact, it is BECAUSE of Cortez and the Conquest that Spain grew to an Empire.

But when Cortez arrived, he had a handful of men who had never seen a city of more than 30,000. They stumbled into the largest empire on earth since the Romans and conquered it within months. This certainly was a marvel, a feat, and one of the greatest upsets in human history.

It's not really that contraversial.

69 posted on 04/04/2002 2:49:01 PM PST by Freetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Freetus
"Thus, the pristine wilderness was nothing more than the result of human activity, completely shaped and formed by humans."

I read a article years ago that the Great Plains was in fact a great forest till the Indians burned it down for centuries. I remember little else about the article but that statement.

70 posted on 04/04/2002 2:51:22 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"Results 0-0 of about 0 containing 'saganistic consilience' "Sorry, no results were found containing 'saganistic consilience' " LOL!
71 posted on 04/04/2002 2:56:33 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Will you sound off on these history_matters?
72 posted on 04/04/2002 3:05:39 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Freetus
How they got the upper hand is one of the most amazing stories of luck and deceit in human history. Cortez was able to exploit the tribes against each other through his clever manipulation. He was outnumbered. Their "guns" were extremely primitive and no match for the aztec warriors. At any point they all could have been killed, but yes, Cortez was lucky and wickidly clever.

I don't think this is an accurate description of the interpretation in Guns, Germs and Steel. I am thumbing throgh my copy of Prof. Diamond's book right now, and he attributes Spanish victory throughout the New World to vastly superior military technology (especially horses and swords), helped greatly by smallpox immunity.

The only thing that qualified as "clever manipulation" or "deceit" was the belief of the Aztec emperor that the Spanish were gods, which caused him to let them into the center of the capital. But this belief was itself a consequence of the fact that the Sapnish were immune from the smallpox ravaging the Incas and had such superior military technology to start with.

He argues that on numerous occasions, not just in Mexico, the vastly better weaponry of the Spanish enabled small bands of conquistadors to wipe out thousands of Indian soldiers at a stroke.

I think his interpretation is that luck had little to do with it, save for the original luck of landing in a new land where your military technology is vastly better rather than vastly worse.

73 posted on 04/04/2002 3:05:52 PM PST by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: blam
Exactly!

Human beings have been at the helm of this earth since their creation. There is no "pure" wilderness where we can truly understand "how nature works" free from "human" meddling.

If you are truly an environmentalist and understand "nature" you realize nature is simply the result of a massive battle, and human's are simply adding to the mixture of conditions. We are not "ruining" the earth any more than the ancient Mayans "ruined" the rain forest or the ancient north american indians "ruined" the Great Plain Forest, as you pointed out. There is no ruin - only change.

74 posted on 04/04/2002 3:11:09 PM PST by Freetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: blam
Consilience is confirmation through unexpected connections and explanatory surprises. Like serendipity, but on purpose.
75 posted on 04/04/2002 3:12:57 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Freetus
Ok. I am also in my thirties. Yes, cortez's feats were marvelous. Luck was involved, of course. Do not discount the superior spanish technology. Remember, it was the spanish that went to the new world, not the other way around. THe spanish were expanding in the old world several years before cortez ever stepped foot in the new world. I just looked this up to be sure of myself: the spanish empire is considered to be born in 1469. THat is over 20 years before the conquest of the new world began. Not as early as I had remembered it, but still your statement is proved wrong.

I think the spanish and the portuguese histories had becomed confused in my memories.
76 posted on 04/04/2002 3:13:41 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre; untenured
Fair enough. We both were exagerating a bit.

The point that Guns makes is the overall point that the Indo-Euro society was itself the recipient of the fortune of an east-west vs north-south agricultural belt and the prevalence of easily domesticated food and farm animals which also led to "superior" diseases like smallpox. His thesis is that is was basically their luck geographically speaking that led to their eventual global dominance and not because of some racial characteristic of that God was on their side or whatnot. Then mameluksabre and I got a bit sidetracked by the particular question of Cortez's "luck." But, truly part of his luck was that he was from a society with superior military technology... based again on Europe's general luck with how their land happened to be formed.

I still maintain that Cortez was a slick guy and that it wasn't his horse nor his guns that were nearly as effective as his lies and manipulations. He was truly one of the greatest leaders of all time, and it was his leadership that made the impossible inevitable. Not to get all Ayn Rand, but Cortez is certainly a great example of how only the individual can truly change the world. The aztecs were more advanced as a society(notwithstanding the guns), but they lacked this fire of the individual... and so they perished as socialism always will in the face of a great man.

77 posted on 04/04/2002 3:33:32 PM PST by Freetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Freetus
Certainly your first para is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Guns, a book of which I think very highly.

I still maintain that Cortez was a slick guy and that it wasn't his horse nor his guns that were nearly as effective as his lies and manipulations.

OK. I'm not an expert on that, so I'll defer to you. But if true, it is an argument that (IMHO, anyway) stands in direct opposition to Prof. Diamond's interpretation of what happened in the Spanish New World. The technological and civilizational advantages of the Spanish, including a written language, were in his view immense. How they came to have those advantages is of course a whole other story.

78 posted on 04/04/2002 3:44:07 PM PST by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: untenured
I agree. Wasn't that a great book, though? That was one of the largest books of non-fiction I have ever just read for fun! And you are right, it is his contention that these forces played out over the years, irrespective of whatever particular personality, like Cortez, happened to stand a any certain crossroad.
79 posted on 04/04/2002 3:50:45 PM PST by Freetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Freetus
Your implication that the largest city of Europe at the time of the Cortez conquest being no more than 30,000 population is frankly bizarre.

London was over 40,000 at the time, still recovering from the plague of the previous generation.

Paris had twice that population, Genoa and Venice may have had as much as three times that population. Some estimates of Moscow put it at nearly a quarter of a million around 1500 A.D.

80 posted on 04/04/2002 3:52:42 PM PST by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson