[My apologies about not writing regularly or on the subjects I say I'm going to. I'd rather just write whatever comes to mind whenever it does. The below started off as a comment that got me thinking about a second subject and thus this post isn't well written and I don't want to put the effort to reorganize it and make it so. Sorry :) ]
This picture annoys me. Some liberal page posted it not too long
ago, probably thinking themselves 'intellectually humorous,' but it's not so. The picture's plain incorrect.
The principle cities of the Mayan Empire had been abandoned almost two centuries before the Spanish arrived. There wasn't a "Mayan people" to meet the Spanish. There were the "Yucatec," a pan-cultural identification, of which a handful called themselves "Mayan" despite having little semblance of the fallen Empire's culture. The Yucatec weren't centralized politically or religiously: they kept their loyalties to kinship groups, marking a significant devolution from something that looked like a state. The same, unexplained pattern is seen elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere in the same time frame.
The great civilizations (if they can be called that) just melted before contact with European explorers: the Cahokians are the primary example in North America (completely gone before 1400) and the Inca in SA (progressive collapse until a civil war broke out just a few weeks before Pizarro made contact in 1532). I've always thought that this was simply the pattern of native civilizations.
Villages were very spread out and never had the wheel for speedy contact, thus trade networks were slow to develop.. When a network did develop, it spread and grew to have hubs that became locations of power and dense contact. It wouldn't take long for foreign infectious agents to contaminate trade networks (especially if they're moving animals over such long distances).
Native immunity was notoriously weak (even to diseases that are native to the continent) so people would start getting very sick with a higher incidence rate in these trading hubs. Factor that into most tribes' religious assumptions (that disease is a curse) and people start understandably fleeing the trading hubs. Go through this dozens of times and the logical culmination is an aversion to property rights, no technological development mechanics whatsoever, minimal political development, low increases in immuity, and minimal literacy (which in turn hampers social, religious, and scitech development). The one significant exception is the Mexica. They built well-populated civilizations with significant technological developments, property rights, and complex social/religious structures (the last was the Aztec). Their problem was that they were all one people.
The principle cities of the Mayan Empire had been abandoned almost two centuries before the Spanish arrived. There wasn't a "Mayan people" to meet the Spanish. There were the "Yucatec," a pan-cultural identification, of which a handful called themselves "Mayan" despite having little semblance of the fallen Empire's culture. The Yucatec weren't centralized politically or religiously: they kept their loyalties to kinship groups, marking a significant devolution from something that looked like a state. The same, unexplained pattern is seen elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere in the same time frame.
The great civilizations (if they can be called that) just melted before contact with European explorers: the Cahokians are the primary example in North America (completely gone before 1400) and the Inca in SA (progressive collapse until a civil war broke out just a few weeks before Pizarro made contact in 1532). I've always thought that this was simply the pattern of native civilizations.
Villages were very spread out and never had the wheel for speedy contact, thus trade networks were slow to develop.. When a network did develop, it spread and grew to have hubs that became locations of power and dense contact. It wouldn't take long for foreign infectious agents to contaminate trade networks (especially if they're moving animals over such long distances).
Native immunity was notoriously weak (even to diseases that are native to the continent) so people would start getting very sick with a higher incidence rate in these trading hubs. Factor that into most tribes' religious assumptions (that disease is a curse) and people start understandably fleeing the trading hubs. Go through this dozens of times and the logical culmination is an aversion to property rights, no technological development mechanics whatsoever, minimal political development, low increases in immuity, and minimal literacy (which in turn hampers social, religious, and scitech development). The one significant exception is the Mexica. They built well-populated civilizations with significant technological developments, property rights, and complex social/religious structures (the last was the Aztec). Their problem was that they were all one people.
They
pretty much spoke the same language, followed similar customs and religious
practices. Sure they were splitting and fighting little wars over the Aztecs'
sacrificial tribute system by the time Cortes made contact, but war wasn't a
constant way of life as it had been for Europeans, East Asians, and Arabians
for upwards of two milennia. Arms and armor went underdeveloped and
resource-expanding technologies like farm equipment were not needed because
they never had their males slaughter one another to press such a labor demand.
There was a lack of individualist competition with what property
rights they had: they never competed their way to prosperity. They just got along.
I suppose that's why our "We-Are-Family" education system glorifies and studies such civilizations that have little to nothing to teach us.
I suppose that's why our "We-Are-Family" education system glorifies and studies such civilizations that have little to nothing to teach us.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you are making a contention, please follow this format for thoroughness and clarity. If you fail to, I will pick on you.
1. Here's what you said:_____________.
2. Here's why it's wrong: ___________.
3. Here's evidence as to why it's wrong: _____________.
4. Here's why this evidence should be considered: _________.