As we last left off in class, we learned that the Aztec Empire was at the height of it's power and had hegemony over a number of city-states in Central Mexico. Russell notes on page 12 that by 1519, the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan "was the largest city that had ever existed in the New World." Yet, the most compelling invention of Aztec design were the chinampas. If you recall from the lecture on Tuesday, these were artificial islands located on the lakeshores and with soil that was piled on these chinampas, Aztec agriculture was particularly productive. To transport the grain, canoes were utilized and could move 10 times the amount of grain compared to the system in Spain with mules. This was no savage culture. This was the height of a civilization because the engineering required to not only devise the chinampa system but also maintain it until the arrival of the Spanish is in a word: stunning. The Aztecs were basking in the riches of their prosperity. However, as was the case with any enterprising white man European, the rumors of a wealthy power in the center of Mexico became too great to ignore.
Just as the party was going strong, 1519 saw the arrival of strange men in "towers or small mountains floating on the waves of the sea." The white man I mean the Spanish had come in search of gold, glory, and conquest. Along came a man who was a true product of the time period. Taking cues from Columbus, He immediately took the opportunity to make the inhabitants of present day Cuba work themselves to death and expose them to culture shock (not to mention a litany of diseases). I'm currently reading a book called "A Dog's History of America " by Mark Derr. It's on the subject of dogs and the scale of their importance in colonizing the Americas. According to Derr, large grey hound dogs were utilized to intimidate and kill the natives. These dogs were specifically trained to rip out the intestines of their victims and maul them to death. I will not go into graphic detail but there were even secondary sources within the book that hinted at the dogs actually consuming the natives (both dead and alive). Because of the use of European war dogs, subjugation of the people in areas such as Hispaniola, Mexico, Peru, and Cuba were expedited tremendously. In one case on page 29 of the book, Columbus sends the dogs to hunt down the Taino after they flee into the mountains. If I may direct your attention to the above picture, I would like to point out just how brutal the scene looks. The picture almost comes alive and you can hear the men being attacked scream in terror as they are graphically killed. Even worse is that the Spaniards seem to look at it as sport and I can even imagine the one in the center showing off the dogs and laughing. A picture is worth many words and this one clearly shows that brutality was normal and actively encouraged. But dogs and exploitation by greedy conquistadors and governors were overshadowed by the horrors of rampant disease.
Man afflicted with smallpox
Guns and steel alone could not negate the advantage that the Aztecs had over the Spanish in the beginning of the 16th century. The simple fact of the matter was that Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Aztec warriors were facing hundreds of Spanish warriors. As Cortes rebuilt his forces from the disaster at Tenochtitlan in June of 1520, the Spanish caught an accidental break in that the Aztecs had become exposed to an epidemic of smallpox (Russell, 23). Russell further notes that the Aztecs had no natural immunity and were devastated as the disease spread like wildfire. An Aztec observer wrote at the time:
"It began to spread, striking everywhere in the city and killing many of the people... This pestilence killed untold numbers of people, many of them dying because there was nobody to feed them, so they starved."
Did the Spanish commit Genocide?
"The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics" brings up an extremely compelling statement on page 95 that "the decades following the Conquest must be reckoned as one of history's greatest demographic holocausts." I read this and thought to myself that there are not many widely known examples of demographic holocausts. The Black Death, plague of Justinian, and an outbreak of the Bubonic Plague in China during the mid 19th century. However, it's difficult to fathom that much death and that many bodies because I for one, and hope none of you ever have as well, haven't seen death on that scale. I've lost a grand-parent and my dog from childhood but I couldn't possibly increase that scale as high as these demographic holocausts were. One would have to bear witness to the genocides in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. Suffice to say, such a sight would be mentally scarring and outright horrifying. We really have to consider just how much devastation we intentionally and unintentionally brought to the native populations that were living in the Americas at the time. It's enough to make us wonder: did the Spanish commit genocide?
Although the outbreak of disease has slowed due to modern advances in drugs, knowledge, and vaccines, there is still but one piece of the puzzle that remains. Exploitation of the Hispanic people continues today with the use of illegal immigrants for cheap labor. The reasoning is the exact same as it was over 500 years ago: money and greed. We have to ask ourselves: Have we really changed? I'll let you be the judge:
This is a very thought provoking post! Indeed, throughout much of history people have spent a great deal of time absorbed in gaining and keeping wealth. This has led to massive cataclysms with people dying in the thousand. As you mentioned, the natives of the Americas experienced that very fate as well. And, as you also mentioned, this fate came through exposure to disease and less than civilized forms of warfare.
Another point I found particularly interesting, was your notation of the Spanish dogs of war being used against the native peoples. To me, that doesn't seem terribly civilized, especially when it is noted that the Spanish considered the natives to be the uncivilized group. It is also worth reiterating that the Aztecs (and the other groups which came before them) were, in many cases, technologically equal to the Europeans in their respective periods. I guess in the scheme of things, the term "civilized" is very relative.
First, as I was absent from class Tuesday, it's nice to have such a recap for me to catch up on the topics discussed.
I also found the chinampas to be wildly innovative and interesting coming from a nation that was, by European standards and telling, savage. To develop the water and soil in such a way as to utilize as much land as possible in hopes to support the large and ever growing population of the area is very telling of the type of people that lived in the region.
I would partially contest your idea that the Spaniards came only for gold, glory and conquest based off the readings for class on Thursday. Díaz stated that the men on board believed they were on a mission to settle the land that they reached. However, it later turns out that Cortéz lied to them and instead it was a trading mission. If the Spaniards were in search of merely gold, glory and conquest, would their mission have been as peaceful as it was in the reading? Would the Spaniards have requested the Natives to make peace with them and speak amicably with them, or would they have simply stormed the beaches and killed and taken everything in sight. Surely the later option would have required less time and money.
I think the point about the dogs is interesting, especially considering that the Spaniards considered themselves a civilized bunch of people and, as you pointed out, this doesn’t seem like a very civilized thing to do. It just hammers home the point that “civility” tends to be a broad term that can be applied to many groups that can differ greatly.
Steph: You are completely correct. One aspect that I forgot was that the Spaniards sought to have control of the Americas for both economic and political reasons. If you think about it, the Americas were rich in both gold and silver deposits. The amount of precious metal sent to the Spanish crown was so great that the Spanish economy became overwhelmed from the influx. Also, I could have done a better job of looking at the political reasons. I won't go into huge detail here but I certainly could have looked at how the Spanish focused it's efforts to explore South America through "explorers" like Cortes, Columbus, Pizzaro, and Ponce De Leon. I am quite certain that this drive came about because the Spanish wanted to have a monopoly in the region over resources, ports for ships, and military outposts. I plan to look at these issues much more in depth next week when I will write a blog post about the Conquest of the Americas. Some issues that will be considered: Native Conversion to Catholicism, Aztec vs. Spanish Weaponry, and the political maneuverings of Cortes to eventually permanently conquer Tenochtitlan.
Good points raised here by all! It's really easy to get caught up in a good guys vs. bad guys narrative with the contact and conquest eras, given the awful things that the Spanish do to most of the native populations they encounter. And while we certainly don't want to minimize the atrocity and damage involved in the process, we also don't want to over-simplify things either. For example, one of the chief advantages the Spanish had when they entered Tenochtitlan was nearly 18,000 Tlaxcalan warriors accompanying their force. We'll talk about this more next week, but the complex web of motivations for ALL of the groups involved is what I want us to try and understand as we continue to examine the record from this era.
Thank you Dr. Gannon. The main agenda for my post next week will be on the political maneuverings by Cortes. As you said, entering Tenochtitlan was only feasible with the reinforcements of neighboring city states. I'd definitely want to study the military differences as well. Also, I'd like to focus on the vengeance the Aztecs extracted upon captured Spaniards. I'll look into my text for specific references but as I recall, captured Spanish soldiers were sacrificed in plain view and earshot of the besiegers. Obviously, this would have had an effect on morale and later the scale of destruction upon the city.
You really recap this very well. I love the pictures and the other resources you used to aid in your breaking down the material. I specifically like how you once again bring into question the issue of what is civilized and what is not. It goes to show that there is a long running debate over this and there is no easy answer. Now days we look back and say that because the Spanish were cruel enough to use these European dogs they were no more civilized than the Aztecs were. It all seems so obvious to us, but then we have to consider what stupid mistakes have been made in more recent years, that in the future people make look back on and question man's stupidity. Such as the WWII holocaust.
You brought up some important points from the readings. The question of have we changed was definitely a good question to end with. The more history I learn the more I realize how corrupt civilizations have been from the start. You pointed out the viciousness during the years of the conquest and the various epidemics that took a sickening amount of lives. These “civilized” individuals had mixed goals including Expedition member Bernal Diaz del Castillo’s “to bring light to those in darkness and also to get rich, which is what all of us men commonly seek.” This reminds me of various other groups from history that believed that if you didn’t live or look like them, then you must be doing something wrong. The search for wealth seems to be one of the most important parts of civilization according to Castillo’s quote and the way Cortez and his conquistadores presented themselves. “They believed their efforts would allow these newly discovered people to leave behind their backward conditions.”(Russell 26) There are issues in today’s world between groups that have issues with one another’s lifestyle and they are willing to kill because of it, for example the Middle East. There is definitely a problem with greed when it comes to immigration. The ability to take advantage of an individual’s hard work indicates what the employer’s values are. I think it’s important to ask where we learn our values from.
Mike brings up a great point about how advanced the Aztec agriculture was with the chinampas. The floating gardens were way more advanced than anything the Spaniards were doing. Mike was right they were not savage like in this sense, because of their agriculture technology. Then he brought up the fact about attack dogs against the Aztecs and other cultures. Like he said it was looked at as a game, but watching people die this way is brutal. I would not go as far as saying that this is savage, because European have historically used human death as entertainment. Roman cultures loved watching gladiator fights that usually went ended with death. It still does not justify using dogs to kill humans as a game.
It seems to me in every old civilization there are arguments that things they did were savage or seen as savage to us now. Of course the Aztecs using human sacrifice as a religious tradition seems odd to us, but to them their gods needed human tribute to continue to bring good to the Aztec people. Consequently to them it was a normal tradition. Maybe when they saw the Spaniards they might have thought of them as savages the way were exploiting them. What is savage to one culture is normal to another.
Mike also talked about the exploitation of Hispanics in American society today. Yes, there are many illegal immigrants working at low wages doing jobs that other Americans don't want to do. In my opinion the exploitation today is far less severe. My parents were able to come to America and get decent jobs so they could have a better life for themselves and their children.
the photos and videos were a nice addition to the recap post to help further understand what was being said. I agree with some of the above comments made about the use of dogs against the native people being uncivilized. However later on in other civilizations this type of death was seen as entertainment. It really makes you question what would be considered civilized and what would be considered savage.
Reading the comments above I see that everyone is focused on the idea of a "civilized" society. I think we all agree when I say that these two groups clearly had different ideas on what qualified as civilized. However, I think the major problem was the breakdown in communication. Both of these groups were major leaders in their region of the world. When two power-hungry leaders/civilizations/militaries come together they will naturally butt heads but when these two groups are unable to understand each other even bigger problems arise. I know the text states that Cortes had multiple translators helping him through his conquest across Mexico and into Tenochtitlan but I am curious to what extent these two groups were able to understand and communicate with one another. In our modern society different languages have words that do not directly translate into the other languages, even with professional translators to communicate! I am just curious to what extent these two groups were really able to communicate. I'm not saying that if the Spanish had been able to understand the Aztecs reasoning for ripping out a beating heart they would be fine with it and I'm about 98% sure that a fight would have broken out eventually anyway but I still wonder had they been able to communicate better would the Aztecs have been wiped out so quickly? How would their future with the "European white man" have been different?
I think this topic has a lot to do with the question Dr. Gannon posed the first day we made our blogs: “what is a civilization?”
When Christopher Columbus and his conquistadores (for lack of a better word) came to the shores of the Americas, he wasn’t expecting to find other human beings, let alone a large population of indigenous peoples living advanced architectural structures.
It’s a miracle the shock itself didn’t kill our boy Chris…
We must also examine the mindset of Columbus before he decided to travel thousands of miles across the ocean in search of new land. His mission was simple: navigate the ocean in hopes of finding new land for Spain to claim and acquire vast new resources. In his mind, and the mind of all Europeans, they were the center of the universe, the start of population on Earth, the rest of the earth had yet to be populated. So how could there be people in these new lands if they hadn’t been discovered yet?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very thought provoking post! Indeed, throughout much of history people have spent a great deal of time absorbed in gaining and keeping wealth. This has led to massive cataclysms with people dying in the thousand. As you mentioned, the natives of the Americas experienced that very fate as well. And, as you also mentioned, this fate came through exposure to disease and less than civilized forms of warfare.
ReplyDeleteAnother point I found particularly interesting, was your notation of the Spanish dogs of war being used against the native peoples. To me, that doesn't seem terribly civilized, especially when it is noted that the Spanish considered the natives to be the uncivilized group. It is also worth reiterating that the Aztecs (and the other groups which came before them) were, in many cases, technologically equal to the Europeans in their respective periods. I guess in the scheme of things, the term "civilized" is very relative.
First, as I was absent from class Tuesday, it's nice to have such a recap for me to catch up on the topics discussed.
ReplyDeleteI also found the chinampas to be wildly innovative and interesting coming from a nation that was, by European standards and telling, savage. To develop the water and soil in such a way as to utilize as much land as possible in hopes to support the large and ever growing population of the area is very telling of the type of people that lived in the region.
I would partially contest your idea that the Spaniards came only for gold, glory and conquest based off the readings for class on Thursday. Díaz stated that the men on board believed they were on a mission to settle the land that they reached. However, it later turns out that Cortéz lied to them and instead it was a trading mission. If the Spaniards were in search of merely gold, glory and conquest, would their mission have been as peaceful as it was in the reading? Would the Spaniards have requested the Natives to make peace with them and speak amicably with them, or would they have simply stormed the beaches and killed and taken everything in sight. Surely the later option would have required less time and money.
I think the point about the dogs is interesting, especially considering that the Spaniards considered themselves a civilized bunch of people and, as you pointed out, this doesn’t seem like a very civilized thing to do. It just hammers home the point that “civility” tends to be a broad term that can be applied to many groups that can differ greatly.
Steph: You are completely correct. One aspect that I forgot was that the Spaniards sought to have control of the Americas for both economic and political reasons. If you think about it, the Americas were rich in both gold and silver deposits. The amount of precious metal sent to the Spanish crown was so great that the Spanish economy became overwhelmed from the influx. Also, I could have done a better job of looking at the political reasons. I won't go into huge detail here but I certainly could have looked at how the Spanish focused it's efforts to explore South America through "explorers" like Cortes, Columbus, Pizzaro, and Ponce De Leon. I am quite certain that this drive came about because the Spanish wanted to have a monopoly in the region over resources, ports for ships, and military outposts. I plan to look at these issues much more in depth next week when I will write a blog post about the Conquest of the Americas. Some issues that will be considered: Native Conversion to Catholicism, Aztec vs. Spanish Weaponry, and the political maneuverings of Cortes to eventually permanently conquer Tenochtitlan.
ReplyDeleteGood points raised here by all! It's really easy to get caught up in a good guys vs. bad guys narrative with the contact and conquest eras, given the awful things that the Spanish do to most of the native populations they encounter. And while we certainly don't want to minimize the atrocity and damage involved in the process, we also don't want to over-simplify things either. For example, one of the chief advantages the Spanish had when they entered Tenochtitlan was nearly 18,000 Tlaxcalan warriors accompanying their force. We'll talk about this more next week, but the complex web of motivations for ALL of the groups involved is what I want us to try and understand as we continue to examine the record from this era.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr. Gannon. The main agenda for my post next week will be on the political maneuverings by Cortes. As you said, entering Tenochtitlan was only feasible with the reinforcements of neighboring city states. I'd definitely want to study the military differences as well. Also, I'd like to focus on the vengeance the Aztecs extracted upon captured Spaniards. I'll look into my text for specific references but as I recall, captured Spanish soldiers were sacrificed in plain view and earshot of the besiegers. Obviously, this would have had an effect on morale and later the scale of destruction upon the city.
DeleteYou really recap this very well. I love the pictures and the other resources you used to aid in your breaking down the material. I specifically like how you once again bring into question the issue of what is civilized and what is not. It goes to show that there is a long running debate over this and there is no easy answer. Now days we look back and say that because the Spanish were cruel enough to use these European dogs they were no more civilized than the Aztecs were. It all seems so obvious to us, but then we have to consider what stupid mistakes have been made in more recent years, that in the future people make look back on and question man's stupidity. Such as the WWII holocaust.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up some important points from the readings. The question of have we changed was definitely a good question to end with. The more history I learn the more I realize how corrupt civilizations have been from the start. You pointed out the viciousness during the years of the conquest and the various epidemics that took a sickening amount of lives. These “civilized” individuals had mixed goals including Expedition member Bernal Diaz del Castillo’s “to bring light to those in darkness and also to get rich, which is what all of us men commonly seek.” This reminds me of various other groups from history that believed that if you didn’t live or look like them, then you must be doing something wrong. The search for wealth seems to be one of the most important parts of civilization according to Castillo’s quote and the way Cortez and his conquistadores presented themselves. “They believed their efforts would allow these newly discovered people to leave behind their backward conditions.”(Russell 26) There are issues in today’s world between groups that have issues with one another’s lifestyle and they are willing to kill because of it, for example the Middle East. There is definitely a problem with greed when it comes to immigration. The ability to take advantage of an individual’s hard work indicates what the employer’s values are. I think it’s important to ask where we learn our values from.
ReplyDeleteMike brings up a great point about how advanced the Aztec agriculture was with the chinampas. The floating gardens were way more advanced than anything the Spaniards were doing. Mike was right they were not savage like in this sense, because of their agriculture technology. Then he brought up the fact about attack dogs against the Aztecs and other cultures. Like he said it was looked at as a game, but watching people die this way is brutal. I would not go as far as saying that this is savage, because European have historically used human death as entertainment. Roman cultures loved watching gladiator fights that usually went ended with death. It still does not justify using dogs to kill humans as a game.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me in every old civilization there are arguments that things they did were savage or seen as savage to us now. Of course the Aztecs using human sacrifice as a religious tradition seems odd to us, but to them their gods needed human tribute to continue to bring good to the Aztec people. Consequently to them it was a normal tradition. Maybe when they saw the Spaniards they might have thought of them as savages the way were exploiting them. What is savage to one culture is normal to another.
Mike also talked about the exploitation of Hispanics in American society today. Yes, there are many illegal immigrants working at low wages doing jobs that other Americans don't want to do. In my opinion the exploitation today is far less severe. My parents were able to come to America and get decent jobs so they could have a better life for themselves and their children.
the photos and videos were a nice addition to the recap post to help further understand what was being said. I agree with some of the above comments made about the use of dogs against the native people being uncivilized. However later on in other civilizations this type of death was seen as entertainment. It really makes you question what would be considered civilized and what would be considered savage.
ReplyDeleteReading the comments above I see that everyone is focused on the idea of a "civilized" society. I think we all agree when I say that these two groups clearly had different ideas on what qualified as civilized. However, I think the major problem was the breakdown in communication. Both of these groups were major leaders in their region of the world. When two power-hungry leaders/civilizations/militaries come together they will naturally butt heads but when these two groups are unable to understand each other even bigger problems arise. I know the text states that Cortes had multiple translators helping him through his conquest across Mexico and into Tenochtitlan but I am curious to what extent these two groups were able to understand and communicate with one another. In our modern society different languages have words that do not directly translate into the other languages, even with professional translators to communicate! I am just curious to what extent these two groups were really able to communicate. I'm not saying that if the Spanish had been able to understand the Aztecs reasoning for ripping out a beating heart they would be fine with it and I'm about 98% sure that a fight would have broken out eventually anyway but I still wonder had they been able to communicate better would the Aztecs have been wiped out so quickly? How would their future with the "European white man" have been different?
ReplyDeleteI think this topic has a lot to do with the question Dr. Gannon posed the first day we made our blogs: “what is a civilization?”
ReplyDeleteWhen Christopher Columbus and his conquistadores (for lack of a better word) came to the shores of the Americas, he wasn’t expecting to find other human beings, let alone a large population of indigenous peoples living advanced architectural structures.
It’s a miracle the shock itself didn’t kill our boy Chris…
We must also examine the mindset of Columbus before he decided to travel thousands of miles across the ocean in search of new land. His mission was simple: navigate the ocean in hopes of finding new land for Spain to claim and acquire vast new resources. In his mind, and the mind of all Europeans, they were the center of the universe, the start of population on Earth, the rest of the earth had yet to be populated. So how could there be people in these new lands if they hadn’t been discovered yet?