Class:

Foundations of the Americas HIST 1603

Student name:

THOMAS JEMMERSON

Student number:

807000743

ASSIGNMENT: DATE DUE:

Examine the view that the Aztecs and Incas were more advanced than the Europeans 31st March 2009

Traditionally, the writers of history have held a Eurocentric bias, dismissing the contributions of Native Cultures, including, those of the Aztecs and Incas, as insignificant. As James Wadsworth writes; Not only does history begin for them abruptly at the moment Columbus first sighted land, but the indigenous peoples seemed to have been inexorably drawn into the technologically, culturally, religiously, economically, and ethnically superior European universe that supposedly came to define them (World History Myopia). Revisionist views such as those expressed by Wadsworth suggest that the historically sensationalist accounts of Native lifestyles, historically used as justification for their destruction, were in fact fuelled by racism and other archaic prejudices. It should be noted however, that while there is merit to the notion that the invading Europeans, and in particular the Spanish conquistadors, were extremely brutal to the Aztec and Inca people when first encountering them in the 16th century, this does not exclusively mean that their societies were in fact less progressive and advanced. It may be argued that some revisionist views promoting the reverse convention are ironically, just as slanted, as they use the European savagery as justification for this view, ignoring that the Europeans themselves had liberal ideas. A more systematic examination of the view that the Aztec and Inca civilizations of pre conquest Latin America were more advanced and progressive than their European counterparts, reveals that within the strata of social structure, science and technology, and religion, rather than one society taking precedence

over the others, that the Aztec and Inca and European societies all had their merits and failings.

In terms of governance, the Incas, Aztecs (Mexica) and Europeans were all administered by centralized power structures, with the Emperor (Inca), Great Speaker and Crown positions of each respective society having roughly equivalent positions at the top of the societal pyramid. In all cases, the persons occupying these positions of cardinal power would determine the general policies of, and direction taken by the empire. While the European Monarch and Inca emperor were determined largely by bloodline, (Aztec society selected the Chief Speaker through a democratic election process involving a Council of Wise Men, consisting of the greatest warriors and wisest priests. Once elected, the Chief Speaker would take on a position of divinity as he was believed to be the representative of the sun god Huitzilopochtli on Earth (Social organization of the Aztecs). The democratic process as it existed, also prevented the establishment of ruling dynasties like the Tudors of England for instance, whose hold on the monarchy lasted from 1485-1603(The Tudor Monarchs). Additionally, even though the influence of the Great Speaker was immense, (he controlled the government and was the High Priest of the temple), there was a system of impeachment designed to remove him as was the case with Moctezuma II, (during the Spanish conquest 1519- 1525), who was replaced by the warrior Chuatemoc after it was discovered that he was under the control of Hernan Cortez, leader of the Conquistadores (Social Organization of the Aztecs). While it may be argued that the claim to divinity of leadership is far fetched, within the modern

context, the hegemonic position of democracy as the symbol of progressive governance alludes to the forward thinking of the Aztec as compared to the European in this instance. It should be noted however that democracy, in its truest sense, means that any member of society has the right to challenge for the top positions in the societal structure; this was not the case with the Aztecs as only members of the elite were allowed this option. Additionally, it was only members of the elite who took part in the impeachment process (Hooker). In this sense, the Aztec form of Democracy may be seen as largely ceremonial. Slavery in Aztec society was not hereditary or permanent but largely used as punishment for specific deviances, while the child of a slave could move into other castes (Hooker). In this respect, it may be argued that the Aztecs were more forward thinking than the Spanish, (whom they first encountered in 1519 with the arrival of Hernan Cortez), as they offered no concessions to natives after conquering their lands. Slavery for them was only a form of exploitation and had no other merits but that of cheap labour, with the Indians being forced to search for gold by the brutal Conquistadores (Hooker). Again, it can be extrapolated that the mere existence of slavery within a society dulls its tendency toward progressive thinking. In essence, the Mexica system may be seen as the relative to European conventions as regarding the enslavement of Africans with the slave being theoretically allowed to purchase freedom.

Further to this, while the Incas and Europeans had in common the idea of an absolute leader determined by birthright, it should be noted that at the lower tiers of society, there were fundamental differences, with the Inca empire being in essence, a

Socialist Confederation emphasizing shared societal responsibility rather than individual advancement (Hooker). Systems of trade, accounting and land distribution were organized such that all citizens were relatively satisfied in terms of food, shelter and clothing. No member of the population owned land, land being assigned to the Allyu or clan of families based on their particular needs. A specific portion of whatever was grown was given to the state as Mita (tax) (The Incas). Generally speaking, the European societies favoured a culture of materialism and accumulation of individual wealth, as demonstrated by the establishment of exploitation colonies in Mexico and Peru by the Spanish in their ruthless quest for gold (Hooker), as well as Privateering and Buccaneering by, French English and Dutch captains such as Fleury, Hawkins, Drake and Hein in the 16th and 17th centuries (High seas Hijinks). At first glance it would appear that the Incas hold the higher moral ground, but this view assumes a utopian society where all individuals were satisfied with serving the wider community rather than their own interests. Further to this, the idea of socialism is arguably defeated by the mere existence of a societal elite. As some historians argue, there may have been a level of resentment amongst conquered tribes within the Inca Confederation, despite the apparent benevolence of the Emperor. Loss of status, previously accumulated wealth and a rigorously enforced restriction on movement were factors contributing to the muted dissonance (Nosotro). Inca benevolence, in this case may be interpreted as a form of Cultural Imperialism which tarnishes its reputation slightly. Additionally, the severe level of materialism showcased by the European invaders is arguably, the precursor to modern day free enterprise and entrepreneurship, not in themselves inhumane things, although from a strictly humanitarian perspective, the general methodology of the European

conquerors in this quest raises serious questions of morality. Objectively, it can be seen that neither system was perfect and that each had its own value.

In the realm of Science and Technology it is relatively easy to subscribe to the view that the Aztecs and Incas were subordinate to the Europeans, with many historians taking the stance that the inferior weaponry wielded by the natives was partly responsible for their relatively quick demise at the hands of the Spanish Conquistadores (Raudzens). Within a wider context however, examination of this view reveals that it may be misleading, as the supporting empirical evidence is inconspicuously absent (Raudzens). Further to this Raudzens argues;

European expansion [] succeeded not when some or other group of indigees [was] outfought in some type of combat but rather when the influx of settlers grew large and continuous enough to numerically overwhelm the native population in the colonial target areas.

As a caveat to this, the author does acknowledge that there were respective direct conflicts between the Aztecs and Incas and the Spanish in which the visitors were particularly brutal in their approach but harkens to the complexities and variety of factors involved in the downfall of these civilizations. It may therefore be far too simplistic, even in these particular cases to think of the native populations as technologically inferior or the Europeans as superior, based solely on their respective access to gunpowder powered

projectile weapons. Further to this, the category of Science and Technology is not merely limited to the realm of warfare. Within the field of agriculture, both the Aztecs and Incas were highly developed, farming being a primary activity of each society. Besides the hundreds of varieties of corn an the ingenuity of the floating gardens or Chinampas used by the Aztecs to grow certain foods, within the sphere of Aztec farming an interesting curiosity arises, as Cook et al mention, the major tool used in cultivation of the land was the digging stick (Essays in population History). Within the context of the Aztec conquest this may first be regarded as a blow to the view that the natives were more advanced, as by the time they had arrived to the Americas the plow had been mastered by the European. As cook et al argue however, the digging stick in its various forms was able to explore areas where the plow and beasts of burden could not go when introduced to Mexico in the sixteenth century (Essays in population history). Therein rises the question of whether advancement has solely to do with an increase in the amount of machinery thrown at the particular problem or the simplicity and practicality of the method used to combat the dilemma. The digging stick in this scenario would be arguably, more effective than some modern day equipment (Cook et al). In this manner, advancement seems to have a direct correlation with necessity and less to do with the complexity of the solution. Within the particular context, the methods used have their merit regardless of aesthetics.

In a similar manner, it may be argued that the Incas mastery of agriculture was fuelled by the needs of the Empire. When considering their achievements in land

irrigation and fertilization for example, the vast expanse of the Confederation meant that there was a relatively wide variation in terrain, soil types and climate which the farmersoldiers had to negotiate (Incas). The Incas through a system of aqueducts were able to make infertile soils productive (Incas). Additionally, bird droppings (guano), abundant on the Peruvian coast as well as llama offal (taqui) as fertilizer, were used by the Inca farmer as fertilizer for crops. This combined with the terraces dug into the mountainside at Cuzco for planting, (with the prevention of soil erosion in mind), showed the technological sophistication of the Inca farming system. While it may be argued that the European plow would be useless along the mountainside, it may also be extrapolated that some of the methods used by the Incas might be just as ineffective in the European farming context making the argument of the native Indians being more advanced moot.

Traditionally monotheistic standards of Christianity have been held in the hegemonic position when compared to the apparently pagan and hedonistic ways of Native Cultures. Within a modern context, more liberal observers argue that subscription to this view is not based on empirical evidence but largely on Christian Eurocentric bias. As a result there is little validity to the argument that nature of Aztec and Inca religious practices made their civilizations less progressive than those of Europeans. In a similar way, acceptance of the validity of Native religious constructs does not mean that these Empires held the dominant positions over their European counterparts. Rather, this writer would suggest that religion makes separating Europeans, Aztecs and Incas into tiers all the more difficult. In the case of the Aztecs and the Spanish for instance, it is arguable

that religious practice was an influential motivator as regards warfare. For the Spanish, the Roman Catholic Church was an agent of conquest and conversion in both the old and New World as demonstrated by the religiously motivated Inquisition against Jews and Muslims resident in the Iberian Peninsula during the 1400s, and the forced conversion implemented upon the Indian populations of the Americas once first contact was made (Spain 1492-1598). Additionally, upon encountering the Aztecs and Incas, the religiously motivated and reactionary Spanish used the apparent pagan nature of each nation to legitimize the destruction their cultures. Religious prejudice in this sense became a major factor in the destruction of temples, idols, calendars and books, (the last of which is applicable only to the Aztecs). However, in a similar manner, some historians may argue that religion was a major factor in Aztec conquest, with their quest for human sacrifices to appease their gods being a major reason for their warlike nature (Chase-Dunn). In a similar manner, the Incas were represented blood thirsty primitives by the Church (Chase-Dunn). While the extent of the level of human sacrifice in each case is debatable, there is some irony to the Spanish Empires use of religious slaughter to justify what was essentially the same practice. Additionally, this fact makes stratification of these three societies into a definite hierarchy extremely difficult. It should be noted however, that the Aztecs, rather than wiping out the religion of the vanquished enemy tribe incorporated their gods into their system of worship in the hope of obtaining more divine power for themselves. Perhaps this may be interpreted as progressive but it is fairly difficult to substantiate this claim as on the other side of the argument it is not hard to imagine that not every member of the Roman Catholic Church endorsed the slaughter of Natives.

While it is the traditional view of the Eurocentric hegemony that native cultures were in fact inferior to European cultures of the same period, there is undoubtedly a certain amount of prejudice associated with this position. In the same manner, revisionist views expressing the opposite convention, promoting Native cultures, such as the Aztecs and Incas as being more forward thinking and liberal than their Trans Atlantic counterparts is ultimately just as biased. After a systematic analysis of each specific culture within the realms of social stricture, science and technology and religion, it is difficult to separate the societies into a clear order and it would be more equitable to say that each has its own virtues and lack thereof.

10

Bibliography

Chase-Dunn, Christopher. "Review of Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare:Imperial Expansion and Political Control Donald J Mabry / The Historical Text Archive 1990-2009. 20 March 2009 <http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php? op=viewarticle&artid=101>. Cook, Sherburne F., and Woodrow Borah. Essays in Population History, Vol. III: Mexico and California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971-1979. <http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft5d5nb3d0/>.

"High Seas Hijinks Caribbeanguide.info. IIWINC 2004. 20 March 2009 < http://caribbean-guide.info/past.and.present/history/pirates.buccaneers/>.

Hooker, Richard. "Incas Civilizations in America. Richard Hooker 1996. 21 March 2009 < http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAMRCA/INCAS.HTM>.

Hooker, Richard. "The Mexica/Aztecs Civilizations in America. Richard Hooker 1996. 21 March 2009 < http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAMRCA/AZTECS.HTM>.

11

Hooker, Richard. "The Spanish Empire Discovery and Reformation. Richard Hooker 1996. 21 March 2009 < http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/EMPIRE.HTM>.

Mabry, Donald J. "Spain 1492-1598 Donald J Mabry / The Historical Text Archive 1990-2009. 18 March 2009 <http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php? op=viewarticle&artid=321>.

Nosotro, Rit. "The rise and Fall of the Incan empire and the influence of the Chimu Hyperhistory.net 15 June 2006. 21 March. 2009 <http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/index.htm>.

Raudzens, George. "Outfighting or Outpopulating? Main Reasons for Early colonial conquests 1493-1788" Technology, Disease and Colonial conquests, sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Ed. George Raudzens. Brill: Leiden Boston Koln 2001. 31-57 "Social Organization of the Aztecs www.Mexica.net. Mario Araujo 2003. 20 March 2009 < http://ns3.azteca.net/aztec/nahuatl/organiza.html>.

"The Tudor Monarchs TudorHistory.org. Lara E. Eakins 1995-2009. 20 March 2009 < http://tudorhistory.org/monarchs/>.

12

Von Hagen, Victor W. "The Incas P.F. Collier, A Division of Newfield Publications, Inc 1996. 20 March 2009 < http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/incas/collier.htm>. Wadsworth, James E. World History Myopia: Indians and Trade in World History Textbooks. World History Connected 3.2 2006: 30 pars. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whc/3.2/wadsworth.html>.

13