1491

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

[mutchdutch]

"Guided by the pristine myth, mainstream environmentalists want to preserve as much of the world's land as possible in a putatively intact state. But "intact," if the new research is correct, means "run by human beings for human purposes." Environmentalists dislike this, because it seems to mean that anything goes. In a sense they are correct. Native Americans managed the continent as they saw fit. Modern nations must do the same. If they want to return as much of the landscape as possible to its 1491 state, they will have to find it within themselves to create the world's largest garden."

I think the last page summarizes some of the author's thinking

Can the whole article be posted so that we don't lose it??

[Freetus]

Sounds good. I'm sure I was wrong. What I meant in my fast-type was that none of the Spanish Conquistadors had likely seen anything larger than Madrid, 30,000 plus to my recollection, when they walked into Teotihuacan, 100,000 plus and the center of an amazing city-state that paralleled the Roman achievments. Thanks for the clarification.

[mamelukesabre]

"The aztecs were more advanced as a society(notwithstanding the guns)"

I'm afraid I still can't declare this argument settled, as long as you persist in stating these obvious falsehoods. If you want to make the argument that the europeans were superior simply due to the geographical misfortune of the americas, then fine. I will accept that argument. But it is false to say that the aztecs were more advanced as a society than the spanish were at the time the aztecs were conquered(which was 1521 btw, over 50 years after the birth of the spanish empire). The spanish had the rest of europe to compete with economically, and a fierce enemy(muslims) to compete with militarily. These stresses on the spanish people forged a powerful empire...an empire that proved unopposable by the americas.

Maybe it all just boils down to how one defines "advanced society" and "superior culture". In that case, our argument becomes a difference of OPINION, not a case of right and wrong.

[blam]

"Can the whole article be posted so that we don't lose it??"

YES! Please do. I have problems posting long articles. Thanks.

[blam]

Gods, Graves, Glyphs. (Thanks)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

To find all articles tagged or indexed using 'Gods, Graves, Glyphs'

Click here: 'Gods, Graves, Glyphs'

[Bob J]

Ward Connerly on RadioFR NOW!

Listen while you FREEP! Click HERE!

[Teacher317]

Your post provided no reason, either. However, since the debate is the size, quality, and scope of civilized cities in the 15th Century, I'd say facts are more important than reasoning in this case. Your reasoning seemed to consist of 'Nobel prizes and Oscars have been given out to undeserving people, so the Pulitzer winner must be undeserving as well'. (Poor logic, by the way.) His post discussed the facts that there was a city in the 'New World' that was larger and more sanitary than those in the 'Old World'. Reason all you want, but that won't change the size or cleanliness of cities 500+ years ago.

[Freetus]

But it is false to say that the aztecs were more advanced as a society than the spanish were at the time the aztecs were conquered(which was 1521 btw, over 50 years after the birth of the spanish empire).

The Conquest of Cortez did exactly coincide with the height of the "birth" of the Spanish Empire. This birth lasted roughly 50 years. The many steps were unification of the Spanish territories, the expulsion of moors and jews from the Iberian, and the discovery of the Americas. Cortez was the first wave of a newly minted Empire, yes, but it was his success in the New World that was the greatest achievement of this new Empire. So yes, there was an "Empire" at this time, but there wasn't anything like the Empire which came to be.

It is nice to meet someone to argue with. I'm glad we moved past the name-calling! But, for all my misquotes and misleading claims. I will still express my conviction that when Cortez walked into Teotihuacan, virtually noone in Spain would have ever seen a thriving city-state of such architectural, technological and cultural advancement. I totally agree that Spain became more advanced as she grew and developed, but make no mistake - the people who did the initial dirtywork were nothing short of clever provincial rogues destroying a culture more advanced than they (which also happened to be the case when they expusled the moors).

But the common ground we have, I believe, is that we admire what the missionaries accomplished with the natives. I will say that the Aztecs were a greater Empire than the fledgling tribe Cortez represented, but spiritually speaking, the Aztecs were as primitive as a rock. The Spainards converted an entire continent and brought more people to Christ than any other. They are to be admired and respected as a "superior" culture for this. But this development occured many years after the initial Conquest. I will totally agree that the Spaniards brought the light of Christ to an superstituous and cannabilistic bunch. But in all truthfullness, the Spanish were nothing short of barbarians until they got this chance to prove themselves, and as much as they brought "civilization" to the Aztecs, so they too made its discovery themselves.

[Teacher317]

Maybe it all just boils down to how one defines "advanced society" and "superior culture". In that case, our argument becomes a difference of OPINION, not a case of right and wrong.

Well put. I'm sad I didn't read this post before I posted my previous response. So how would you define 'advanced' in terms of city? I'd say size, population density management, sanitation, rule-enforcement, commercial consistency (ie, money over bartering, a single monetary system, etc) and economic size/stability. I think the Aztecs would win on that scale. However, IIRC, Teotihuacan contained half of the population all in one city (I forget the vocabulary term for that), and that can certainly be a huge contributing factor to explain the differences... much of the entire nation's efforts went into maintaining that one city, rather than dispersing across several more moderately populated locations.

[crystalk]

Among other things, you mean Tenochtitlan, not Teotihuacan.

The dog had been domesticated in Americas of course.

Spanish military technology, and tactics, were far more advanced than anything the New World had seen.

As Bernal Diaz wrote "We were never more than about 180 men, and the numbers of Indians we supposedly slew--why, if we had found that many Indians bound and gagged, we could never have put them to death!"

The superior religion and faith, versus the old one red in tooth and claw, was the number one reason for Spanish success. We may be about to see another half of the world conquered, against a religion barely more advanced than what Moctezuma had.

[crystalk]

The event at Guadalupe, which occurred only 17 years after the Spanish first landed, virtually Catholicized Mexico at one stroke. Considerable progress had already been made, 20% or so had shifted...but at Guadalupe 20/80 became 80/20 overnight!

No wonder this Virgin is the patroness of all of the Americas, including the USA!

[blam]

"Teotihuacan contained half of the population all in one city (I forget the vocabulary term for that), and that can certainly be a huge contributing factor to explain the differences... much of the entire nation's efforts went into maintaining that one city, rather than dispersing across several more moderately populated locations."

In my opinion, the jury is still out on this subject.

[gnarledmaw]

Grains: Beyond maize, quinoa and amaranth (grain and greens varieties) were grown extensively. Some minor grains that arent coming to mind...

They cultivated and consumed a large number of crops that were "lost" to the world and only managed to exist through the cultivation by a few natives. Some surprising and interesting vegtetables are starting to be redistributed by genetic preservation organizations.

Having problems getting your kids to eat vegetables? A rediscovered root, maybe on a shelf near you soon, when baked becomes "butterscotch pudding". No, Im not kidding.

[gnarledmaw]

Id say it, but Carry_Okie already covered it all better.

[blam]

"A rediscovered root, maybe on a shelf near you soon, when baked becomes "butterscotch pudding". No, Im not kidding."

Are you allowed to tell us what it is? As a kid, I made sassafrass(sp) tea.

[gnarledmaw]

Well, if you promise not to tell anyone else...

Its called "Maca" (Lepidium meyenii), its a tuber. Its kind of like a potato. Traditional Andean villagers have maintained it. The standard potato is the "irish potato", there are 9 other potato looking things that were grown in the new world that either were never brought back to europe or just never caught on.

Now dont imagine this as a butterscotch flavored "irish potato". The maca and the others are all together different creatures that just look like the potato that you and I are familiar with.

BTW, If the herbalists are correct, you should probably keep it away from adolescent males. They have enough hormone control problems the way it is.

[gnarledmaw]

ping

[#3Fan]

From the article:

According to family lore, my great-grandmother's great-grandmother's great-grandfather was the first white person hanged in America. His name was John Billington. He came on the Mayflower, which anchored off the coast of Massachusetts on November 9, 1620. Billington was not a Puritan; within six months of arrival he also became the first white person in America to be tried for complaining about the police. "He is a knave," William Bradford, the colony's governor, wrote of Billington, "and so will live and die."

LOL And Libertarians think jack-booted-thugs are a new phenomenon.

Good article. Thanks for the ping.

[Seti 1]

There are several problems with the batch of "scientists" doing this research. I call them that because this type of work necessarily involves a degree of projected subjectivity in order to evoke the construction of hypotheses. It is also distorted by the nature of its funding. There is also cut-throat competition involved. Finally, most of the people doing that work are too specialized in their education and thus easily duped.

Good points but true of everyone funded by NSF, NIH,NIMH and all the rest. There are serious problems in all of these yet they seem to work.