John E. Kicza - History of the World Since 1500 Paper #1
Class: History of the World Since 1500
Topic: Kicza's book Resilient Cultures... and resiliency of native culture
Grade: A (98/100!)
Kathryn Downward
Robert Strayer
TA: Brien O’Connell
January 30, 2006
Bad at Dying or Good at Living?
A look at whether native American cultures are truly resilient at all
John E. Kicza’s book, Resilient Cultures: America’s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization 1500- 1800, is a comparative history of the native peoples of the America’s and their struggles against European explorers, colonizers and conquistadors during the early modern period of the 1500 to 1800s, as well as the effects the two forces have on each other physically and culturally. The cultures of the Americas are many and varied, consisting of dozens of different societies and empires; and while one could argue that they were “resilient” in their colonial confrontations, perhaps they were not quite as durable as Kicza implies.
One culture that helps Kicza’s theory of resiliency is the Maya . Despite the fact that the civilization was changed by European expansion, the Maya maintained for the most part their cultural identity. Mayan culture came into existence 2,000 years or so before European exploration on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. At that point, the agricultural societies of Mexico started to organize themselves into political units complete with paid officials, judges and set laws for them to uphold. At the point of Spanish arrival in the New World, Mayan culture had transformed from a sedentary, vastly populated and highly sophisticated society into a semi-sedentary, village-based society. The Mayans were the first culture in the New World to have a complete writing system, as well as use of highly advanced astronomy and math, and a highly complex and detailed religion; during their collapse in the ninth century, however, these were dropped along with their elaborate trade networks. Instead they adopted consensus politics, leaving behind the days of a permanent nobility; cultural and internal “cohesion” was more important.
In the mid 1500s, the Spanish arrived in the Yucatan. In order to conquer the Mayas, the Spanish would have to knock out their main capitol, as they had done with the Aztecs in 1521. The Mayans, however, were not centered around one large capitol; instead they were semi-sedentary and paid allegiance only to their central community. The Spanish would have to go around and take out villages one by one. Nor were the Maya politically united. The Spanish found that “a town which had once welcomed them with gifts might on the next entry greet them with arrows” or vice verse. Even treaties could not be trusted. Their earlier attempts with cavalry and sword failed in the rugged forested terrain, and the hit and run tactics of the native peoples made fighting them even more difficult. When skirmishes did happen, there were few casualties, even with the Spanish use of gun and crossbow. Eventually, however, the Spanish were triumphant and the conquered groups of Mayans were made to accept subordination to the colonizers. Tens of thousands of Mayans, though, lived in the autonomous communities on the eastern peninsula free from Spanish colonial rule.
The Spanish affected the free Mayans as well; Franciscan friars made an excursion into the forests of the Yucatan to try and convert the native people into Christians. This is a major factor in the “resilient” argument, for despite the fact that some Mayans adopted smaller aspects of Christianity into their religious beliefs, such as the Virgin Mary and the cult of Saints, they remained for the most part true to the religion they had followed for thousands of years. Only smaller aspects of the Christian religion made it into their cultural system and those that did were transformed from being the religious symbols of Protestantism to those of Mayan beliefs. Another example of the “resiliency” of Mayan culture is evident in the only slight shift in the material culture of the society. Unlike other cultures through Mexico, the semi-sedentary Yucatan society adopted very little of Spanish advancement, taking only pigs and chickens from them. They had no need for metal tools and were very late in the adoption of European cloth goods, nor did their language take more than a few words from that of Spain. In addition, there was little contact between Spanish explorers and the rural Mayans, which preserved a large amount of cultural tradition. The Mayans, for the most part, stayed a concrete culture. This is not to say that European influence had no negative affect on them, for the opposite is true. Starting in 1550, the Mayan population fell from 240,000 to 170,000 in fifty years, signs of the epidemics the Spanish brought with them - yellow fever and small pox. Regional networks collapse, further localizing Mayan communities. The decline in trade, due to the Spanish, further destroys the traditional Mayan nobility. The Mayans are forced to create town councils and move from their villages into large, central towns. Spanish colonial rule was not all good for the Mayas; it was not all bad either. The effects from the conquer and colonization of the Mayans upon their culture could have been vastly worse. Instead of pure decimation, the Mayan culture came out primarily unscathed, showing much resiliency under great duress. Central to Kicza’s argument is the idea of native cultures as “resilient”, and while the Mayan culture is not untouched, it is for the most part true to what it was before colonization.
The Aztec culture, on the other hand, shows how Kicza’s theory of “resiliency” is not as bulletproof as he might assume. He argues that even under terrible conditions, such as those the Aztecs faced, the native cultures “maintained distinctive ethnic identities” ; nevertheless, it is difficult to maintain a distinctive ethnic identity when your culture is wiped out. Created about the time of the Mayans, the Aztec Empires were vastly populated and stretched across much of Mexico. The Aztecs started out as a nomadic people, but moved into a sedentary land where they themselves became semi-sedentary while holding onto the fact that they were at one time nomadic warriors of high prestige. The Aztecs became one of the great Empires of their time, and were the last of their kind as well. While not as advanced as their Yucatan cousins, the Aztecs were great warriors and rulers. At one point in their history, the ruling class had over ten million people under their control. In the end this proved part of their undoing.
When the Aztec first learned of Spanish entrance into their territory, they had no great fear; they had seen the Spanish ships and heard of the military success. The Aztec regarded the Spanish simply as outsiders until they learned Cortés was a representative from a new, large monarchy. From then, the conquistador was treated as his status was, that of envoy to the royal court. Montezuma felt that, as a King of an empire he should receive equal status to the King of Spain; Cortés did not agree and implemented a practice long since used by Spain in the conquering of territories. He took Montezuma captive. Through the ruler, he ruled the empire, peacefully. That is, until a few months later when the ruling families of the Aztec empire realized that if the Spanish stayed in power and they continued to accept that power, the Aztec leaders would lose their authority and would no longer be able to rule. Outraged, they planned rebellions and refused to comply with the orders Montezuma sent them. In turn, the Aztec ruler turned to the Spanish to help quash the rebellions and instill order within his society. In the end, Montezuma’s people rejected him, and stoned him, and the Spanish had to start all over again with the conquer of the Aztec people using, this time, force instead of cunning.
In order to take control of the vast empire of the Aztecs, the Spanish forces under the command of Cortés had to take control of its imperial center. Since the first attempt, to gain power through the leader, had failed, the next order of business was to use their renowned military prowess. In addition to their cavalry, crossbows and swords, the Spanish had the help of parts of the Aztec empire fed up with being the subordinate in the structure of things. This band of Aztecs gave supplies, shelter and logistic support to Cortés and his men, though Cortés refused their offer because they got in the way of his military strategy. In 1521 (months after his own troops were almost annihilated by the Aztecs) Cortés took his troops back to the Valley of Mexico and laid siege to the island capitol of the Aztec empire. After months of no supplies, and a systematic wrecking of the town, the Spanish caught the emperor as he fled and the last great empire of South America fell.
Kicza’s argument of “resilient” culture clearly has its anti-theory in the history of the Aztecs. After they fell in 1521, the empire stayed under Spanish control until the end of the colonial period. Three major factors, in addition the defeat and fall of their empire, give evidence to counter the Aztecs as a “resilient” culture. During the siege by Cortés, the Aztecs were infected with smallpox. After 2,000 years of insulation against epidemic disease, the Aztecs had no immunities for smallpox and hundred of thousands fell to it. This had a large hand it the fall of the Aztec empire; if the capitol city had not, during the siege, become infected with smallpox, their numbers would be much larger and perhaps they would have been able to turn back the Spanish again, despite their guns and crossbows. Further proof of the Aztecs being the “anti-resiliency” is the fragmentation resulting from colonial rule. Aztec leaders, after their conquest, had to respond to a body of government that had no understanding of where any of their cultural background came from. Because of this, the Spanish forced the Aztecs as civilizations to break into provincial and local groups, banning the open transfer of traditional beliefs and practices, which in turn led to tiny ethnic groups that were culturally and economically isolated as they had not been pre-contact. “The isolated Indian village of the colonial period,” Kicza says (73), “was a result of this disregard; it did not predate the conquest.” Spanish disregard for the Aztec culture led to the downfall of the people and the empire. There was nothing of the sort, no major flaw within the system that would have led to an event such as this, before European colonialism; the fault lies with the Spanish and shows, sadly, the lack of “resiliency” within the Aztec culture. Spanish rule also ended the Aztec religion, moving in, in its place, Catholicism, proving yet again the lack of “resiliency” in the Aztec people, for they were not even allowed to keep their own religion. A last bit of evidence against the idea of “resiliency” is the vast population drop. From 1519 when the Spanish arrived in the Aztec empire, the population dropped from over 20 million people to barely 1.25 million in 1650 . Because of both warfare and disease, the Aztec population was decimated. While there was some acceptance of Aztecs into Spanish colonial society, and some racial mixing between the two races, the Aztecs as a culture virtually died out. Spanish colonialism, Cortés and his army, led to the disintegration of the civilization. “Resilient”? I think not.
One last example, though I will not go quite so in depth as the previous two, is that of the Iroquois Nation. One of the most resilient cultures in post-colonial America, the Iroquois survived not only as a culture within colonial America, it survived for the most part intact as a culture to the present day. The Iroquois had dealings with not only the Spanish and Dutch, but the British as well. They were involved in treaties and wars; trades and betrayals; and they still exist within American society. One could argue this as “resiliency” or one could say that the Iroquois of the pre- and colonial periods no longer exists and that the culture of the Iroquois of today is one completely different that what it was. Europeans brought to the Indians cultural additives, such as muskets and horses; they also brought disease, warfare and slavery. For the most part, though, the Iroquois changed their culture themselves, adapting rather than being forced, into the culture they became. They are an example of a median ground - “resiliency” and adaptation in one go.
Through his book, Kicza finds cultures that survive without too much damage to their cultural identity. Despite his greater efforts, however, his idea of “resiliency” may not be quite the definition he was looking for. Perhaps if Kicza had used the term “durable” or “adaptive”, or even “stable”, his theory of American cultures as long lasting and enduring would have come out stronger. The fact that the Mayas as a culture survived for the most part intact, at least until the beginning of the 1800s, or the fact that the Iroquois continued to be an influential identity through the nineteenth century and beyond without falling completely apart, does help his premise of native American cultures as “resilient”. However, this can also be taken as the fact that the Mayas and the Iroquois were simply strong enough, unlike the Aztecs, despite the large effects of European invasion, to withstand the test of time. Their cultures were decimated, changed for all time by the European colonial movement, but did survive in an altered sense. Perhaps it is, as Kicza says, that they were “resilient” in existing, but couldn’t it simply be they were effective in not dying?
Downward, Kathryn- You have provided a good, solid analysis in your work on the quasi-resiliency of the Mayan people. You put together some integral facts that show a thorough understanding of the material. Well done! 98 A
Topic: Kicza's book Resilient Cultures... and resiliency of native culture
Grade: A (98/100!)
Kathryn Downward
Robert Strayer
TA: Brien O’Connell
January 30, 2006
Bad at Dying or Good at Living?
A look at whether native American cultures are truly resilient at all
John E. Kicza’s book, Resilient Cultures: America’s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization 1500- 1800, is a comparative history of the native peoples of the America’s and their struggles against European explorers, colonizers and conquistadors during the early modern period of the 1500 to 1800s, as well as the effects the two forces have on each other physically and culturally. The cultures of the Americas are many and varied, consisting of dozens of different societies and empires; and while one could argue that they were “resilient” in their colonial confrontations, perhaps they were not quite as durable as Kicza implies.
One culture that helps Kicza’s theory of resiliency is the Maya . Despite the fact that the civilization was changed by European expansion, the Maya maintained for the most part their cultural identity. Mayan culture came into existence 2,000 years or so before European exploration on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. At that point, the agricultural societies of Mexico started to organize themselves into political units complete with paid officials, judges and set laws for them to uphold. At the point of Spanish arrival in the New World, Mayan culture had transformed from a sedentary, vastly populated and highly sophisticated society into a semi-sedentary, village-based society. The Mayans were the first culture in the New World to have a complete writing system, as well as use of highly advanced astronomy and math, and a highly complex and detailed religion; during their collapse in the ninth century, however, these were dropped along with their elaborate trade networks. Instead they adopted consensus politics, leaving behind the days of a permanent nobility; cultural and internal “cohesion” was more important.
In the mid 1500s, the Spanish arrived in the Yucatan. In order to conquer the Mayas, the Spanish would have to knock out their main capitol, as they had done with the Aztecs in 1521. The Mayans, however, were not centered around one large capitol; instead they were semi-sedentary and paid allegiance only to their central community. The Spanish would have to go around and take out villages one by one. Nor were the Maya politically united. The Spanish found that “a town which had once welcomed them with gifts might on the next entry greet them with arrows” or vice verse. Even treaties could not be trusted. Their earlier attempts with cavalry and sword failed in the rugged forested terrain, and the hit and run tactics of the native peoples made fighting them even more difficult. When skirmishes did happen, there were few casualties, even with the Spanish use of gun and crossbow. Eventually, however, the Spanish were triumphant and the conquered groups of Mayans were made to accept subordination to the colonizers. Tens of thousands of Mayans, though, lived in the autonomous communities on the eastern peninsula free from Spanish colonial rule.
The Spanish affected the free Mayans as well; Franciscan friars made an excursion into the forests of the Yucatan to try and convert the native people into Christians. This is a major factor in the “resilient” argument, for despite the fact that some Mayans adopted smaller aspects of Christianity into their religious beliefs, such as the Virgin Mary and the cult of Saints, they remained for the most part true to the religion they had followed for thousands of years. Only smaller aspects of the Christian religion made it into their cultural system and those that did were transformed from being the religious symbols of Protestantism to those of Mayan beliefs. Another example of the “resiliency” of Mayan culture is evident in the only slight shift in the material culture of the society. Unlike other cultures through Mexico, the semi-sedentary Yucatan society adopted very little of Spanish advancement, taking only pigs and chickens from them. They had no need for metal tools and were very late in the adoption of European cloth goods, nor did their language take more than a few words from that of Spain. In addition, there was little contact between Spanish explorers and the rural Mayans, which preserved a large amount of cultural tradition. The Mayans, for the most part, stayed a concrete culture. This is not to say that European influence had no negative affect on them, for the opposite is true. Starting in 1550, the Mayan population fell from 240,000 to 170,000 in fifty years, signs of the epidemics the Spanish brought with them - yellow fever and small pox. Regional networks collapse, further localizing Mayan communities. The decline in trade, due to the Spanish, further destroys the traditional Mayan nobility. The Mayans are forced to create town councils and move from their villages into large, central towns. Spanish colonial rule was not all good for the Mayas; it was not all bad either. The effects from the conquer and colonization of the Mayans upon their culture could have been vastly worse. Instead of pure decimation, the Mayan culture came out primarily unscathed, showing much resiliency under great duress. Central to Kicza’s argument is the idea of native cultures as “resilient”, and while the Mayan culture is not untouched, it is for the most part true to what it was before colonization.
The Aztec culture, on the other hand, shows how Kicza’s theory of “resiliency” is not as bulletproof as he might assume. He argues that even under terrible conditions, such as those the Aztecs faced, the native cultures “maintained distinctive ethnic identities” ; nevertheless, it is difficult to maintain a distinctive ethnic identity when your culture is wiped out. Created about the time of the Mayans, the Aztec Empires were vastly populated and stretched across much of Mexico. The Aztecs started out as a nomadic people, but moved into a sedentary land where they themselves became semi-sedentary while holding onto the fact that they were at one time nomadic warriors of high prestige. The Aztecs became one of the great Empires of their time, and were the last of their kind as well. While not as advanced as their Yucatan cousins, the Aztecs were great warriors and rulers. At one point in their history, the ruling class had over ten million people under their control. In the end this proved part of their undoing.
When the Aztec first learned of Spanish entrance into their territory, they had no great fear; they had seen the Spanish ships and heard of the military success. The Aztec regarded the Spanish simply as outsiders until they learned Cortés was a representative from a new, large monarchy. From then, the conquistador was treated as his status was, that of envoy to the royal court. Montezuma felt that, as a King of an empire he should receive equal status to the King of Spain; Cortés did not agree and implemented a practice long since used by Spain in the conquering of territories. He took Montezuma captive. Through the ruler, he ruled the empire, peacefully. That is, until a few months later when the ruling families of the Aztec empire realized that if the Spanish stayed in power and they continued to accept that power, the Aztec leaders would lose their authority and would no longer be able to rule. Outraged, they planned rebellions and refused to comply with the orders Montezuma sent them. In turn, the Aztec ruler turned to the Spanish to help quash the rebellions and instill order within his society. In the end, Montezuma’s people rejected him, and stoned him, and the Spanish had to start all over again with the conquer of the Aztec people using, this time, force instead of cunning.
In order to take control of the vast empire of the Aztecs, the Spanish forces under the command of Cortés had to take control of its imperial center. Since the first attempt, to gain power through the leader, had failed, the next order of business was to use their renowned military prowess. In addition to their cavalry, crossbows and swords, the Spanish had the help of parts of the Aztec empire fed up with being the subordinate in the structure of things. This band of Aztecs gave supplies, shelter and logistic support to Cortés and his men, though Cortés refused their offer because they got in the way of his military strategy. In 1521 (months after his own troops were almost annihilated by the Aztecs) Cortés took his troops back to the Valley of Mexico and laid siege to the island capitol of the Aztec empire. After months of no supplies, and a systematic wrecking of the town, the Spanish caught the emperor as he fled and the last great empire of South America fell.
Kicza’s argument of “resilient” culture clearly has its anti-theory in the history of the Aztecs. After they fell in 1521, the empire stayed under Spanish control until the end of the colonial period. Three major factors, in addition the defeat and fall of their empire, give evidence to counter the Aztecs as a “resilient” culture. During the siege by Cortés, the Aztecs were infected with smallpox. After 2,000 years of insulation against epidemic disease, the Aztecs had no immunities for smallpox and hundred of thousands fell to it. This had a large hand it the fall of the Aztec empire; if the capitol city had not, during the siege, become infected with smallpox, their numbers would be much larger and perhaps they would have been able to turn back the Spanish again, despite their guns and crossbows. Further proof of the Aztecs being the “anti-resiliency” is the fragmentation resulting from colonial rule. Aztec leaders, after their conquest, had to respond to a body of government that had no understanding of where any of their cultural background came from. Because of this, the Spanish forced the Aztecs as civilizations to break into provincial and local groups, banning the open transfer of traditional beliefs and practices, which in turn led to tiny ethnic groups that were culturally and economically isolated as they had not been pre-contact. “The isolated Indian village of the colonial period,” Kicza says (73), “was a result of this disregard; it did not predate the conquest.” Spanish disregard for the Aztec culture led to the downfall of the people and the empire. There was nothing of the sort, no major flaw within the system that would have led to an event such as this, before European colonialism; the fault lies with the Spanish and shows, sadly, the lack of “resiliency” within the Aztec culture. Spanish rule also ended the Aztec religion, moving in, in its place, Catholicism, proving yet again the lack of “resiliency” in the Aztec people, for they were not even allowed to keep their own religion. A last bit of evidence against the idea of “resiliency” is the vast population drop. From 1519 when the Spanish arrived in the Aztec empire, the population dropped from over 20 million people to barely 1.25 million in 1650 . Because of both warfare and disease, the Aztec population was decimated. While there was some acceptance of Aztecs into Spanish colonial society, and some racial mixing between the two races, the Aztecs as a culture virtually died out. Spanish colonialism, Cortés and his army, led to the disintegration of the civilization. “Resilient”? I think not.
One last example, though I will not go quite so in depth as the previous two, is that of the Iroquois Nation. One of the most resilient cultures in post-colonial America, the Iroquois survived not only as a culture within colonial America, it survived for the most part intact as a culture to the present day. The Iroquois had dealings with not only the Spanish and Dutch, but the British as well. They were involved in treaties and wars; trades and betrayals; and they still exist within American society. One could argue this as “resiliency” or one could say that the Iroquois of the pre- and colonial periods no longer exists and that the culture of the Iroquois of today is one completely different that what it was. Europeans brought to the Indians cultural additives, such as muskets and horses; they also brought disease, warfare and slavery. For the most part, though, the Iroquois changed their culture themselves, adapting rather than being forced, into the culture they became. They are an example of a median ground - “resiliency” and adaptation in one go.
Through his book, Kicza finds cultures that survive without too much damage to their cultural identity. Despite his greater efforts, however, his idea of “resiliency” may not be quite the definition he was looking for. Perhaps if Kicza had used the term “durable” or “adaptive”, or even “stable”, his theory of American cultures as long lasting and enduring would have come out stronger. The fact that the Mayas as a culture survived for the most part intact, at least until the beginning of the 1800s, or the fact that the Iroquois continued to be an influential identity through the nineteenth century and beyond without falling completely apart, does help his premise of native American cultures as “resilient”. However, this can also be taken as the fact that the Mayas and the Iroquois were simply strong enough, unlike the Aztecs, despite the large effects of European invasion, to withstand the test of time. Their cultures were decimated, changed for all time by the European colonial movement, but did survive in an altered sense. Perhaps it is, as Kicza says, that they were “resilient” in existing, but couldn’t it simply be they were effective in not dying?
Downward, Kathryn- You have provided a good, solid analysis in your work on the quasi-resiliency of the Mayan people. You put together some integral facts that show a thorough understanding of the material. Well done! 98 A