anyone else here read "1491" by Charles Mann?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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 really doesn't. Unless you are setting out to look for that.

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.

But he didn't. The crying indian ad completely supports his premise that the environmentally conscious Indian is a common popular myth.

Its like an author trying to dispel the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. Does he have to list the actual people who believe it to dispel that myth? That's silly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

He never, never, says they werent living with the land, or environmentally conscious.

Did you read the same book I did? He repeatedly talks about the sustainability of Indian practices, from the planting of the three sisters, to the Amazonian forest practices, to Peruvian terracing. (of course its not possible to assert anything one way or the other about consciousness precontact, considering the absence of written records outside MesoAmerica and the paucity of those)

Indeed, in the once instance where its widely held in popular culture (and until recently in the academic consensus) that indians were grossly irresponsible, the case of the Maya, he very strongly attempts to make the case that environmental decline was NOT the cause of the Mayan downfall. Very odd indeed for someone trying to challeng the myth of indian stewardship. He is NOT trying to challenge that myth (if myth it is) , particularly - hes trying to challenge the "myth of pristine wilderness". Which is not the same thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No he really doesn't. Unless you are setting out to look for that.



But he didn't. The crying indian ad completely supports his premise that the environmentally conscious Indian is a common popular myth.

Its like an author trying to dispel the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. Does he have to list the actual people who believe it to dispel that myth? That's silly.

If hes asserting that the myth is currently impacting policy, and if hes claiming that his demolition of the myth is a big deal with many modern implications, yes, he would.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No he really doesn't. Unless you are setting out to look for that.

Ive returned the book to the library, and so cant find the quotes, Im sorry.

I definitely got that impression, and I swear by the beauty of the forests and the purity of the streams that I didnt pick up the book looking for that. I picked it up, in fact, cause I thought it would have something to say about stuff like where different groups were in 1491, how their economic and cultural and power relations were changing, etc. he gives some of that, for the Inca, for example, but for the rest hes making an agenda - an interesting one, and one I could have accepted in lieu of the survey I was looking for, had he not been so annoying in his hints and innuendos about his implications. And so overwhelming in his sense of offended righteousness and victimization, which I found far more overwhelming and annoying than any stuff from enviros.

Again I cite Jared Diamond in GGS, who manages to be a myth buster, and to go over some of the same ground as Mann (though several years earlier) and manages to be engaging rather than annoyng.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
He never, never, says they werent living with the land, or environmentally conscious.

Yes, he actually does. He refers to massive terraforming by the natives. How they completely altered the environment to suit their needs. How the Maya completely overshot their resource base (I'm not sure how that's consistent of being "environmentally conscious").

Did you read the same book I did? He repeatedly talks about the sustainability of Indian practices, from the planting of the three sisters, to the Amazonian forest practices, to Peruvian terracing. (of course its not possible to assert anything one way or the other about consciousness precontact, considering the absence of written records outside MesoAmerica and the paucity of those)

And talks about how the Mayans collapsed because of their misuse of resources. And I'm not sure how you get that the Europeans were not sustainable... as the Old World shows then and currently, it was pretty sustainable.

Indeed, in the once instance where its widely held in popular culture (and until recently in the academic consensus) that indians were grossly irresponsible, the case of the Maya, he very strongly attempts to make the case that environmental decline was NOT the cause of the Mayan downfall. Very odd indeed for someone trying to challeng the myth of indian stewardship. He is NOT trying to challenge that myth (if myth it is) , particularly - hes trying to challenge the "myth of pristine wilderness". Which is not the same thing.

What in the world?! Not saying that Mann is perfect (he does fall into sentimentalism) but this argument that he tries to make the case that environmental decline was not the fall of the Mayans is silly. Look at this review of the book:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton070206.html

The Indians were superb "resource managers," then, rather than the mystic nature-lovers of popular culture and multiculturalist curricula. Yet some Indian societies occasionally overtaxed their environment and hastened their own demise. The Cahokia over-hunted animals, over-cleared forests and vegetation to plant maize, and diverted a river to supply water. These interventions led to erosion and cataclysmic flooding that destroyed the maize crops, a disaster repeated in other river-valleys where brush and trees were cleared to plant maize. This environmental degradation probably contributed to the Cahokia 's abandonment of their territory. So too with the Maya in Central America , who also overtaxed and outgrew their environment's capacity to support their numbers. Add war, economic competition, and drought, and the stresses were too great for the Maya to overcome — an object lesson, perhaps, for our own civilization: not about "rebuilding an environment from the past," as some sentimental naturalists have it, but about "shaping a world to live in for the future," Mann concludes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The Indians were superb "resource managers," then, rather than the mystic nature-lovers of popular culture and multiculturalist curricula. Yet some Indian societies occasionally overtaxed their environment and hastened their own demise. The Cahokia over-hunted animals, over-cleared forests and vegetation to plant maize, and diverted a river to supply water. These interventions led to erosion and cataclysmic flooding that destroyed the maize crops, a disaster repeated in other river-valleys where brush and trees were cleared to plant maize. This environmental degradation probably contributed to the Cahokia 's abandonment of their territory. So too with the Maya in Central America , who also overtaxed and outgrew their environment's capacity to support their numbers. Add war, economic competition, and drought, and the stresses were too great for the Maya to overcome — an object lesson, perhaps, for our own civilization: not about "rebuilding an environment from the past," as some sentimental naturalists have it, but about "shaping a world to live in for the future," Mann concludes.

Mr Hanson also misread the book then. He made the very strong point that the decline of the Mayan cities was greatest in the areas where drought should have had less impact. He very strongly indicates that he believes that it was mainly war that caused the Mayan downfall, and that he takes issue with traditional views. To the extent that he accepts the enviro decline thesis, he is simply accepting old views. To the extend he adds in anything new, its to emphasize the importance of war. Again I dont have the book handy but my memory doesnt match with Mr Hansons. You will forgive me for thinking that Mr Hanson has a strong agenda as well, and is not a reliable rapporteur on this.

Mann DOES tell the story of Cahokia. Hard to avoid, given that it too has been well known for several years. He does not particularly mention over hunting, IIRC, but focuses on the river diversion. Which in context looks like a one time mistake, not a consistent failing repeated over time.

Kudos to Mr Mann for including Cahokia, an instance that goes against the grain of Indian sustainability. Reread the book, if you have it, and compare the number of pages devoted to indian practices whose sustainability Mr Mann explicitly asserts, and compare it to the length of his discussion of Cahokia.

even Mr Hanson picks up that Mann believes that "The Indians were superb "resource managers," then, rather than the mystic nature-lovers of popular culture and multiculturalist curricula. Yet some Indian societies [b[occasionally[/b] overtaxed their environment and hastened their own demise."


as for their mystical attitudes to nature, that would have required a broad survey of Indian culture and religion, and its attitudes towards nature. Maybe Im having a senior moment, but I dont recall such a survey in the book.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mr Hanson also misread the book then.

Everyone misread the book aside from you?

Simply because there was internecine warfare doesn't mean that the environmental concerns were not a good portion. IIRC, one of the reasons for the warfare was the environmental concerns.

Kudos to Mr Mann for including Cahokia, an instance that goes against the grain of Indian sustainability. Reread the book, if you have it, and compare the number of pages devoted to indian practices whose sustainability Mr Mann explicitly asserts, and compare it to the length of his discussion of Cahokia.

Why exactly does he need to devote equal page lengths to these arguments? The main point is that natives used the environment for their own means, terraforming it, and generally making it better able to sustain greater populations, which ties into the earlier argument that native populations were far, far greater than the conventional wisdom postulates.

His indicating that the natives weren't always successful in their terraforming is an interesting aside, but not exactly something that is even needed in the book. It doesn't do anything for the main argument. Someone saying, well, the Mayans and the Cahokians messed up in their terraforming doesn't change the fact that most native tribes engaged in extensive, successful terraforming efforts in order to support greater populations. The exceptions do not invalidate the rule, to be more brief.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Mr Hanson also misread the book then.

Everyone misread the book aside from you?

Ha! Ive been looking online for responses to the book, quite honestly (before posting here) and havent found much aside from routine reviews. I did take issue with what Mr Hanson says. I have since 9/11 looked at some websites where Mr Hanson is widely admired and I am perhaps, less of a VDH fan than you are. Whatever.

Simply because there was internecine warfare doesn't mean that the environmental concerns were not a good portion. IIRC, one of the reasons for the warfare was the environmental concerns.

Again, if you reread the book, everything new or challenging Mr Mann brings on the Maya is in the direction of weakening the arguement that it was mainly about environmental reasons, while acknowledging what everyone already knows. Youre a lawyer. If you were trying to make a case for "sustainable" indian practices, and you had to deal with the Mayan case, and minimize the harm to your side, you couldnt do better than Mr Mann does.

Why exactly does he need to devote equal page lengths to these arguments? The main point is that natives used the environment for their own means, terraforming it, and generally making it better able to sustain greater populations, which ties into the earlier argument that native populations were far, far greater than the conventional wisdom postulates.

His indicating that the natives weren't always successful in their terraforming is an interesting aside, but not exactly something that is even needed in the book. It doesn't do anything for the main argument. Someone saying, well, the Mayans and the Cahokians messed up in their terraforming doesn't change the fact that most native tribes engaged in extensive, successful terraforming efforts in order to support greater populations. The exceptions do not invalidate the rule, to be more brief.

Im not suggesting he needs to devote equal page lengths. I agree he is arguing that there were more Indians than was thought (though that argument isnt altogether new) I do agree he is arguing for a more active indian role. I do agree he is arguing against "a pristine wilderness".

I most emphatically do NOT agree that he considers the indians no "better" from an enviro POV than the Euros. Maybe he doesnt beleive in them having a mystical view of the land, but I dont recall him giving much evidence either way. I do recall several cases where he directly contrast Indian practices, notably forms of maize cultivation, with later european practices. In all such cases the Indian practice seems to be more "sustainable" and I dont recall Mr Mann being shy about pointing that out.

I got a very strong sense of Mr Manns admiration for Indian agricultural practices, including their sustainability. I am surprised you did not get that.

Indeed, if Indian practices werent sustainable, much of the point of the book would be lost, as it would indicate that the indian population bloom, (post 700 CE in North America) would not have been sustainable anyway.

[One_more_turn]

The old worlders (Asians, Europeans) were steeled from millenia of wars, intrigues, plagues, and other calamities. Europeans in 1492AD had the knowledge, the weaponry, the will, and the numbers to enslave/exterminate Native Americans. They never had a chance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
The old worlders (Asians, Europeans) were steeled from millenia of wars, intrigues, plagues, and other calamities. Europeans in 1492AD had the knowledge, the weaponry, the will, and the numbers to enslave/exterminate Native Americans. They never had a chance.

You talk as if the Ameridians had not had wars and intrigue for thousands of years as well.

They certainly were backwards in technology, but their lack of immunity to Eurasian diseases was clearly the one thing they could not overcome. Technology can be aquired - just look how in just three hundred years the plains indians changed their entire way of life and became horsemen the equal of the Central Asian steppe horsemen, who had ridden horses longer than anyone else on Earth.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


You talk as if the Ameridians had not had wars and intrigue for thousands of years as well.

Actually Mr Mann would seem to suggest that they intrigued too much for their own good. IE they saw the Euros, and immediately tried to intrigue to use the Euros against their immediate rivals, a strategy that proved disastrous by allowing the euros to get a foothold. As I say above, Im a tad skeptical of this explanation as it explains too much, including things that never happened, like the Ottoman conquest of Europe. If one DOES consider the indians more naive than the euros, either in OMTs sense, or in Manns sense, and has to deal with the fact of thousands of years of Indian intrigue, Diamond has an explanation - without literacy, they indians didnt have good records of past intrigues, and could only go on what happened in their or their parents lifetimes, or on vague legends.

Though literate mesoAmerica should have been different. Did the Mayans and the Mexican civs even read each others records? I dont know.

Mann seems to think the Inca quipui (sp?) were more than accounting records. What they WERE, we dont know, and its not clear if they would have had political records of the past.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


You talk as if the Ameridians had not had wars and intrigue for thousands of years as well.

They certainly were backwards in technology, but their lack of immunity to Eurasian diseases was clearly the one thing they could not overcome. Technology can be aquired - just look how in just three hundred years the plains indians changed their entire way of life and became horsemen the equal of the Central Asian steppe horsemen, who had ridden horses longer than anyone else on Earth.

its easier to acquire horses than guns or steel though, as they dont require a mining or manufacturing infrastructure. Though again, Mann discounts the usefulness of early 17th c guns.

BTW, have either OMT or Gepap actually read the book IS and I are talking about?

[Odin]

I think the population crash caused by Eurasian diseases was the main thing that doomed the Native Americans. Had there been no massive die-off sheer population numbers would of slowed down European settlement considerably.

[Barnabas]

Mayas and Aztecs (and other central mexican civs) were aware of each other, those were the only american high civilizations in contact, the maya elite even learned Nahuatl.
And much of what is known about ancient central mexican civs, is known because of what the mayas south of them wrote of their northern neighbours.

Only the mayas had a full writing system, which could record any sentence.

From wiki:

"At the time of the Spanish conquest, Aztec writing used mostly pictographs supplemented with a few ideograms. When needed it also used syllabic equivalences; Father Durán recorded how the tlacuilos could render a prayer in Latin using this system, but it was difficult to use. This writing system was adequate for keeping such records as genealogies, astronomical information, and tribute lists, but could not represent a full vocabulary of spoken language in the way that the writing systems of the Old World or of the Maya civilization's script could."

I remember reading once an article by scientists who believed that the "indus valley script" was not a script at all, it mentioned the symbols being too many, and the sentences too short.

Opponents of that idea said a civilization so big would be impossible without a writing system.

The scientists mentioned the inca empire which had no writing system, and that the symbols could have been seals which just indicated the kind of product, the city, the king, the quantity etc. Like quipus of the andes.

And they also mentioned a writing system is nit necessary for an empire, they mentioned aztecs, who could have copied the writing system of the mayas, but chose not to. Or didnt feel the need for one.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


its easier to acquire horses than guns or steel though, as they dont require a mining or manufacturing infrastructure. Though again, Mann discounts the usefulness of early 17th c guns.

BTW, have either OMT or Gepap actually read the book IS and I are talking about?

No, I have not read the book.

And from what I have read in other accounts, I would certainly agree with Mann about the early guns the Europeans had.

The Spaniards did not beat the Inca or the Aztecs thanks to their guns. They won because of a fractured political situation in both areas, the impact of disease, and daring willingness to take advantage of these situations.

There was a recent show about archeological discoveries from the Inca siege of Cuzco, including the first archeological evidence of a gun fatality in the new world - and what the archeologist found when examining the bodies is that most had been killed by Inca weapons, meaning that most of that fighting was done by inca vs. inca. Just as in Mesomaerica, most of the fighting was done by Aztecs vs. their rival city states that had allied with Cortes against the Aztec.

No matter how fanciful the stories are, a few hundred men with some horses, primative guns, and steel do not conquer vast empires by themselves. They needed to exploit divisions in the systems they attack, which they did, AND a lucky break on top, which they had thnaks to the fact that disease was causing widespread collapse of thse societies.

And also, one simply can;t compare the Spanish situation to the English situation later. Englsih colonist faced far smaller Ameridian communities that were less advanced than those the Spanish faced, communities already feeling the effects of the new diseases, and they themselves had guns a century ahead of what Cortes or Pizzaro had.