anyone else here read "1491" by Charles Mann?

[lord of the mark]

well?

[Barnabas]

I read an article which mentioned the book, which was about terraforming (I hope that word exists) done by indians in the amazonas.

That much of the modern landscape is in fact manmade.
I agree with "that", that agriculture anr "urban life" were not just something of the Andes and Mesoamerica.



**
I just read the wiki article and I disagree with much of it.
I just cant believe that the Aztect empire had a greater population than France, or that the inca empire a greater population than Spain.

And of course europeans had better technology.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Barnabas
I read an article which mentioned the book, which was about terraforming (I hope that word exists) done by indians in the amazonas.

That much of the modern landscape is in fact manmade.
I agree with "that", that agriculture anr "urban life" were not just something of the Andes and Mesoamerica.



**
I just read the wiki article and I disagree with much of it.
I just cant believe that the Aztect empire had a greater population than France, or that the inca empire a greater population than Spain.

And of course europeans had better technology.

apparently there has been serious revisionism on the size of the pre-columbian population, so the dude is serious, and to give him credit he does talk about the arguments of the "low counters" as well as the "high counters" Its a methodologically difficult thing.

On the tech, he really does seem to stretch it. If the euros and indians confront and the euros are better in one area, and the indians in another, he only talks about where the indians were better.

For ex. he discounts that the Puritans/Pilgrams established themselves in New England due to superior militarly tech, by citing several references that indian bows had longer effective ranges than English muskets. To him the English only won cause the indian pops were knocked down by disease, and the indian tribes were all double crossing each other.

Well and good, but he omits a couple of things
A. England had long bows too, in the middle ages. They were displaced by crude firearms, and in most places never even displaced the crossbow, in large part cause they took too much training to use. that had to be a disadvantage the indians faced as well.
B. 17th c Artillerly had far longer ranges than muskets.

Similarly, he points out a source saying that Pizarros troops adopted Inca cloth armor, as superior. He doesnt ask why such an improvement didnt spread to Spanish troops elsewhere at the time.

I found the book interesting (he does compile a lot of interesting material) but also frustrating, he was too much playing advocate, and that may have made me skeptical of arguments he made that may well have been right.

[Barnabas]

Ive found a good article about this

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cerickso/baures/Mann2.html

"Today, almost 4 decades later, a small but growing number of researchers believe that the Beni once housed what Clark L. Erickson of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, calls “some of the densest populations and the most elaborate cultures in the Amazon”—cultures fully as sophisticated as the better known, though radically different, cultures of the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas. Although these still unnamed peoples abandoned their earthworks between 1400 and 1700 C.E., Erickson says, they permanently transformed regional ecosystems, creating “a richly patterned and humanized landscape” that is “one of the most remarkable human achievements on the continent.” To this day, according to William Balée, an anthropologist at Tulane University in New Orleans, the lush tropical forests interspersed with the savanna are in considerable measure anthropogenic, or created by human beings—a notion with dramatic implications for conservation.



These views have thrust the Beni into what Denevan calls “the Amazon archaeology wars.” For more than 30 years, archaeologists have clashed, sometimes in bitingly personal terms, over whether the vast river basin could provide the resources for indigenous cultures to grow beyond small, autonomous villages. Until relatively recently, the naysayers had the upper hand. In the last decade, though, several archaeologists, including Anna C. Roosevelt of Chicago’s Field Museum, have published evidence that such societies did exist throughout the várzea, as the Amazonian floodplain is known, and the bluffs above it (Science, 19 April 1996, pp. 346 and 373; 13 December 1996, p. 1821).



The dispute over the Beni is similar. Using environmental arguments, skeptics contend that the Beni earthworks must be either natural formations or the remains of a short-lived colony from a richer part of South America—the Andes, most likely. “I haven’t seen any basis for thinking there were large, permanent settlements there,” says archaeologist Betty J. Meggers of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. “But if they were there, where is the solid evidence?” In particular, critics like Meggers point out, there is no indication of hierarchical organization in the Beni. Without it, they say, the kind of sophisticated society envisioned by Denevan, Erickson, and Balée could not have existed."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Ive found a good article about this

says archaeologist Betty J. Meggers of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

in manns book, Meggers is like the Lord Voldemort of South American archaeology. She doesnt buy the Amazon as giant orchard theory, and thinks the Amazonians use slash and burn pre-contact, as they did post-contact. Mann follows some archaelogists who think slash and burn wouldnt have been economically feasible using stone tools instead of post-contact metal tools (at least there hes willing acknowledge euro tech superiority) based on some experiments where some archaeologists tried to hack at the jungle with stone tools.

Mann also makes a big deal about the idea that so much of the hemisphere was under human management of one kind or another, the whole idea of preserving wilderness is bogus. I dont quite follow him on that. Its not like anybody lately has suggest the whole hemisphere, or even the whole of the US, was wilderness at contact. AFAICT most enviros (other than radical types like our pal Ludd) are interested in only a few select wilderness areas being preserved. I like Mann much better when hes doing history, instead of half-baked revisionist environmental ethics. Theres far too much of the latter in the book for my taste.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, it's an awesome book

Its not like anybody lately has suggest the whole hemisphere, or even the whole of the US, was wilderness at contact.

I've heard this quite a bit. Not from anyone with the proper letters after their name, but just intelligent folks from the general population.

The common knowledge is the natives lived "with nature" and it was basically wilderness. They don't realize the that natives did vast, extensive terraforming to suit their own purposes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I've heard this quite a bit. Not from anyone with the proper letters after their name, but just intelligent folks from the general population.

The common knowledge is the natives lived "with nature" and it was basically wilderness.

I learned me in school that the indians taught the pilgrims to grow corn. Disney showed that Pocahantas lived in a village that grew corn, when she wasnt prancing around the forest. We all knew that.

But most of the land wasnt under crops. Which Mann acknowldeges. What he claims is that most of the forest land (at least in the US east of the Mississippi) that wasnt under crop was carefully controlled by burning, etc. AFAICT from the book the evidence is a few references by euros to forests with little undergrowth. I dont know how that matches with any other evidence (archaelogical, for ex) He basically glosses over that with all the other "oh there were so many indians" "oh they were so advanced" "thoreau saw this beautiful empty forest, but it was really a cemetary, let me sit down and cry" stuff from all over the hemisphere. To me it sounded very much like he jumped on that cause it agreed with his thesis. Now maybe its true, but I sure as hell dont trust Charles Mann to tell me. Hes way too much into the "enviros are really racists" stuff that fairly oozes from most pages (no, he doesnt actually put it that baldly, but he doenst have to)

Again, I see a straw man. Are there ladies at the local sierra club who dont even recall that there the eastern woodland indians farmed, and whove never heard of "the three sisters". Sure, same as there are dudes the next neighborhood over who think Saddam planned the WTC attack. While torturing Christians and Jews in the basement. Dont matter.

Who exactly is calling for, say, converting the entire state of Connecticut into wilderness? No one I know (unless you count General Ludd) Wilderness proposals that Im aware of generally involve taking chunks of national forest, usually in the intramontane west, (Where there seems to be NO evidence of human management) and keeping out loggers and ski resorts. And thats on fairly small chunks. Oh, and ANWR, where assuredly there was no native agriculture. AFAIK wilderness areas in the east are infitesmal, and usually located in areas where there was little if any native land management (a few parts of northern Maine and the Adirondacks, and a mountain top in the great smokies) no one is trying to get much added to them.

If he could mention a specific wilderness area proposal, and explain exactly how the new learning on the indians changes the cost benefit, id be glad to hear it. But he doesnt, precisely, I think, because looked at that way, the whole thing vanishes into smoke - theres no argument, just a lot of innuendo against enviros. Now as an argument against radicals like Ludds friends, it would be great, but no one really gives a damn about them. (Sorry Ludd)

Maybe in Brazil its more relevant, but its not clear how. The things that folks are actually fighting about there, like cattle farms, and stuff, Mann should (?) still be against. Now maybe precontact Amazonian style managed forests could be restored as a non-wilderness alternative, but unless there are actual proposals, its academic.

BTW, what he ALSO fails to mention, is that the mass terraforming, if it DID take place, isnt all that old. The three sister didnt really get established in the North east till after 700 CE or so. 1300 years ago. Versus indian settlement that is 12000 years old if youre a clovis believer, or 20000 or more years ago if youre a pre-clovis beleiver. and of course the continent was around for tens of thousands of years before that. Why exactly, should we privilege land use circa 1491? I know that the absence of that intensive land use when contact was made was due to tragedy, but Im not sure that the fact is determinative of the proper land use ethics.

If Hitler had been defeated in 1939, there would probably have been enough Jewish emigrants from central europe to form a majority in the area between the Jordan and the sea, and even if no Pals had departed. Is that relevant to borders in the ME today? I dont know many who think it is.

The tragedy of the Amerindians creates obligations on our part toward surviving Amerindians. I dont see how it changes our relationship to the land in places where few or no Amerindians now live.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I learned me in school that the indians taught the pilgrims to grow corn. Disney showed that Pocahantas lived in a village that grew corn, when she wasnt prancing around the forest. We all knew that.

That's part of "living with nature". The constant myth was that the natives used agriculture and hunting to feed themselves, but did so in a way that did not destroy the pristine-ness of nature. Mann's book (or part of it) is dedicated to showing that myth is incorrect and enviros using the "crying indian' are really reading the wrong things into history. The natives did terraform the land substantially and not just take what the land gave them.

I think you completely misunderstand his entire argument. There are enviros out there who use the natives as an example of people who lived with nature, took what the land gave them, and thus couldn't compete with Europeans who raped the land to take its resources without replenishment.

It really doesn't matter how long before 1491 they did so. The fact they actually did so is substantial in breaking down the native living with nature and keeping it pristine myth. So why use them as a reason to not touch the land and create national parks?

[Barnabas]

-Mexico has around ten million "native americans" (nahautl, maya, zapotecs etc) , most of the rest of its population is significantly amerindian, from westernized native americans who speak spanish and dont identify culturally with its native side, to mestizos of mixed spanish and amerindian ancestry.


-Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia are over 50% native american countries, Ecuador is over 1/4 native american, with many of its mestizos being in fact "westernized" native americans.


All those countries with important amerindian populations were home to the highest amerindian civilizations.

In other countries like Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina or Brazil the amerindian population is much smaller, some of those countries even had to use black slaves since they were running out of workers.
I deduce the population density outside of the andes and mesoamerica must have have been much much smaller.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I learned me in school that the indians taught the pilgrims to grow corn. Disney showed that Pocahantas lived in a village that grew corn, when she wasnt prancing around the forest. We all knew that.

That's part of "living with nature". The constant myth was that the natives used agriculture and hunting to feed themselves, but did so in a way that did not destroy the pristine-ness of nature. Mann's book (or part of it) is dedicated to showing that myth is incorrect and enviros using the "crying indian' are really reading the wrong things into history. The natives did terraform the land substantially and not just take what the land gave them.

I think you completely misunderstand his entire argument. There are enviros out there who use the natives as an example of people who lived with nature, took what the land gave them, and thus couldn't compete with Europeans who raped the land to take its resources without replenishment.

Actually he says repeatedly that the native practices, terraforming and all, WERE sustainable, in a way that many of the European practices were not.

Im also not sure how a corn field is pristine nature.

The Crying Indian was used for TV ads about littering. Maybe youre not old enough to remember them, but I am. Im not quite sure how the fact that Indians burnt underbrush to manage the forest suggests they wouldnt be upset about someone tossing a coke can on the side of the road.

Again, Id like Mann to give actual detailed sites. Attacking the "enviros" for the belief that pre-contact North America was "pristine" is as logical as attacking "neocons" for the belief that Saddam personally planned 9/11, or attacking critics of Israel for the belief that Mossad planned 9/11, or attacking Marxists for the belief that capitalism produced nothing of value.

In all cases a group with serious things to say, and quite aware of basic reality, has naive allies who distort their message and believe things that seem to support it, but are absurd.

Marx recognized the many important and positive things capitalism did.
Neocons did not believe or say that Saddam personally planned 9/11.
Mainstream critics of Israel did not claim that the Mossad planned 9/11.
The leaders and organizations of the environmental movement were quite aware that the indians practiced agriculture on a large scale. They were not aware of ALL the indian land practices cited in Manns book - some of which, BTW, are still a matter of controversy among archaelogists. However there is no particular case that I can see that any of the things theyve said, nor any of the policy proposals they support, are impacted in any way be the new finds (should they pan out)

[Imran Siddiqui]

The general perception among those members (and outside of it) is more important than what is actually advocated by those groups. Neocons may not have believed Saddam planted 9/11, but they gave off the implication so that an extraordinary number of FoxNews (not exactly hostile to neo-con agenda) watchers believed it to be the case. Marx recognized positive and important things of capitalism, but plenty of his followers seem to have glossed over that part.

And while serious enviros know of extensive agricultural changes made to the environment, plenty of the folks who consider themselves enviros like to play up the implication of the "living with nature" native.

Personally, to me, this was an eye opening book. I knew that the natives did more than simply "live with nature", but I wasn't aware to the extent they terraformed the continent, in the slightest.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The general perception among those members (and outside of it) is more important than what is actually advocated by those groups. Neocons may not have believed Saddam planted 9/11, but they gave off the implication so that an extraordinary number of FoxNews (not exactly hostile to neo-con agenda) watchers believed it to be the case. Marx recognized positive and important things of capitalism, but plenty of his followers seem to have glossed over that part.

And if someone wrote a book about how 9/11 was really planned, and included in it either innuendos about "an importnat myth" of either neoconservativism, or critics of Israel, has now, at last been dispelled, or if someone wrote a book about the economic development due to capitalism in the early modern period, and included in it innuendos that a central myth of Marxists was now shattered, I would, in any of those cases, call the book garbage.

Yeah, he had a lot of interesting stuff about a lot of interesting topics. But he wove in too much of his own (in my view often unjustifed) opinions on the political or ethical implications of the interesting stuff. (BTW, not all of which was about enviros - his apparently approving quote of the innuenco that folks who believe in an American origan for syphillis do so out of guilt was way over the top) This was bad for three reasons. 1. It was annoying, as poorly reasoned and argued political and ethical statements often are 2. It detracted from the flow of the narrative, such as it was 3. It brought into question for me the interesting stuff.

let me explain
Mr Mann thinks Dr Meggers is wrong about Amazonia, and seems to think her opponents are right. He does not give enough quotes from Dr Meggers in response to the latest work, to know in fact what her argument is. He DOES show in his comments on many other issues, that he is an advocate for a political POV, and one not above playing fast and loose with the facts (for example, the crying indian ads were not made by enviros -they were, IIRC, made by the ad council, as part of a larger anti-litter campaign that predated them) I can only conclude that Mr Mann may well have ommitted quite compelling arguments by Dr Meggers.


BTW, did you notice how Mr Mann seems to think that the fact that indian tribes, when contact was made, often tried to make alliances with europeans, was a key reason for their being defeated. Thus technological superiority is not required to explain it.

Apparently Mr Mann is not aware that Europeans behaved in the exact same manner when the Ottomans entered Europe. From Serbian vassals of the OE, to the French alliance with the OE, to the nuances of Hungarian politics. Yet Europe was not conquered by the OE.

For the most part Mr. Manns attempt to explain the conquest on grounds excluding technological superiority fall flat, other than the impact of disease of course. Which frankly is not that new - anyone who read GGS was aware of that, several years before Mr. Manns book.

And then there is what I had expected and which Mr. Mann did NOT provide - a survey of conditions across the hemisphere as it was in 1491, given the current state of knowledge.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui .

And while serious enviros know of extensive agricultural changes made to the environment, plenty of the folks who consider themselves enviros like to play up the implication of the "living with nature" native.

What implications? That we should return to hunter gather society? If thats what you mean, you have a different def of "plenty" than I do.

That we should maintain wilderness in the few places where it currently exists? Most of which are places that were never managed by indians?

Paradoxically for such a militanty PC book (on every issue other than environmentalism) the book is deeply ethnocentric - or at least hemispherocentric.

What, pray tell, of european enviros? From what I can gather, they want to limit GHGs, they want to protect endangered species, etc, etc. All without benefit of a "pristine wilderness" myth. How could this be the case? To answer that, Mr Mann would have to actually, you know, look directly at the enviro movements in question and analyze them, instead of using strawmen and guilt be association (tarring the Sierra Club with the ELF brush)

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you have run into that opinion then you may not be all that willing to call it garbage. If someone wrote something on how Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 despite all the propaganda insinuating he was, some may say it garbage while others say its necessary based on such a prevalent view. If you haven't run into folks with that opinion, bully for you. I, OTOH, have and found them utterly annoying. The myth that the natives left the land alone except for just what they needed to survive (minimal contact, basically) and thus we should look to their example is something that I'm glad was shot down by Mann, whose conclusion is that the natives did with the land as they wished and it is up to us to do the same. No need to harken back to some mythical people who didn't 'disturb nature'.

Mann never says technological superiority wasn't on the Europeans' side (well, perhaps a way way to put it is that the natives knew of similar principles, but didn't apply them as the Europeans did... like metalurgy), but to be very honest, disease was the major killer (by a good deal). And if the high count numbers are correct, European subjugation of native tribes may have failed in a number of cases. Technological superiority may not have mattered in some of those cases (though in others, they undoubtably would).

I find it very amusing that you use strawmen to tar Mann as using strawmen . Mann did not come off at all as anti-environmentalism. Simply that using the myth of the native to advance environmental causes is a ridiculous exercize. If you came across the 3rd part as him tarring the Sierra Club with the ELF, then you were reading a completely different book than I was.

for example, the crying indian ads were not made by enviros -they were, IIRC, made by the ad council, as part of a larger anti-litter campaign that predated them

Which only goes to prove my point. The popular image of the natives is one of the living with the land, environmentally conscious folk. This is an image that some (not all, he never says that) have run with. It's a very popular myth.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you have run into that opinion then you may not be all that willing to call it garbage. If someone wrote something on how Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 despite all the propaganda insinuating he was, some may say it garbage while others say its necessary based on such a prevalent view.

If they specifically said " foxnews says this, and its wrong" Id be fine.

Ditto if someone said "the following website says Mossad caused 9/11"

If Mann said, Earth First! believes X, and its wrong, Id be fine. But he doesnt, he gives the impression that the Sierra club, or the Wilderness society, or anyone who supports the endangered species act does.

No, he doesnt say so explicitly. Either through sloppiness, or deviousness. Its in fact impossible to say WHO he believes thinks this or how widespread he thinks it is, cause hes never explicit. In which case his constant of invoking of it, is of no value to me. Just say the continent wasnt a wilderness, and heres why and how, and leave it at that. If the fact that many folks beleive the opposite is important enough to mention, its important enough to be precise about.

He seemed to think it important enough to keep mentioing constantly, but not important enough to quote who actually believes it. Except for the crying indian ad, which as I pointed out, he got wrong.