Home | Contents | Photos | News | Reviews | Store | Forum | ICI | Educators | Fans | Contests | Help | FAQ | Info

The Myth of Western Superiority
(11/23/00)


A response to The Myth of Western Superiority:

The only trouble with this is it is not true.

>> Diamond starts by noting the New World's paucity of big domestic mammals. Whereas Eurasia had 13 species, the Americas had only one—the llama, limited to the Andes. Animals such as the bison proved impossible to domesticate widely, as modern attempts have shown. <<

The facts: The llama, alpaca, vicuna, and guanaco, all South American camel family members, were and still are domesticated in that they allowed themselves to be shorn and carried burdens. They live in many parts of South America, including the Andes, and the pampas. But they did not rely on humans for food and still don't. The dog allowed itself to carry and haul burdens, be a friend, and be eaten.

>> The Eurasians' animals offered several benefits. They provided protein, wool, and hides. <<

In this hemisphere, the following large mammals provided protein, wool, and hides:

1. bowhead whale
2. grey whale
3. numerous other species of whales, dolphin and porpoise
4. polar bears
5. grizzly bears (2 species)
6. black bears
7. muskox
8. caribou (2 species)
9. bison (2 species)
10. elk (3 species)
11. bighorn sheep
12. 4 species of deer
13. pronghorn
14. mountain goat
15. 4 species of camel
16. tapir
17. peccary or javelina
18. agouti
19. moose
20. several species of seals

The following large mammals gave hides, fur, and sometimes meat:

lynx
panther
bobcat
wolf
coyote

>> They powered plows, grindstones, and water lifts. They transported people and goods. They served as vehicles of war. <<

beasts of burden in this hemisphere:

dogs
4 species camelids.

>> Eurasia also had more plants available to domesticate. The Mediterranean zone alone held 32 species of large-seeded grass, as opposed to 11 in all of the Americas. These developed into crops such as wheat, rice, barley, and sorghum, while the Americas produced only corn. <<

Plants domesticated in this hemisphere:

corn (maize)
potatoes
tomatoes
tobacco
cotton
amaranth
girasole (aka sunchoke or Jerusalem artichoke)
numerous species of brodiae, referred to as "Indian potatoes," "Indian turnips," "bitterroot," etc.
numerous species of oak
numerous species of peppers
numerous species of squash
numerous species of gourds

In addition, grass, scrub, brush, chapparal, and woodlands were managed for browse, seed, mast, and nut production.

>> Domestication propelled an agricultural revolution. People abandoned hunting and gathering to settle down and farm. This increased their productivity and let them experiment with more plants and animals, which led to more people adopting the lifestyle. The factors reinforced each other in a positive feedback cycle. <<

The farmers in this hemisphere -- with or without the propulsion of domestication (of cattle, swine, or horses), include:

the Mandan, Hidatsa, Aroostook, Wampanoag, Hopewell, Anasazi, their present day descendants Puebloans, Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, and more peoples throughout central and South America than I can enumerate. In addition, the people of this hemisphere as I recall had vast trade empires, moving goods from the Pacific Northwest to Mexico and Maine. . . and around. . .and as for complex societies with caste, writing, empire, trade, etc. -- check into the Incan, Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, Toltec, Mixtec empires, and then those up into Guatemala and Honduras, and have a look at the Hopewell culture, the mound builders as they were called, and try checking out the Chacoans, Mesa Verdeans, the trade routes whose roads are still visible today, the trading seafaring societies of the Pacific Northwest . . .

Diamond's just wrong on the facts. Repeatedly. I despise lousy scholarship, especially when it's supposed to apologize for the nonexistent technological weakness of the American Indians.

I will debate Diamond any day. And I am not even a scholar in the area. Neither, however, is he. I hate this sort of garbage deeply. The despotic governments of this hemisphere were as evil and autocratic as any in Europe or Asia, and the good governments of this hemisphere seem to have been maybe better, and certainly the basis of democracy. The principles of man's relationship to society that developed and flourished in this hemisphere have certainly proven to be better -- that's BETTER -- than those of Europe or Asia with the exception of Tibet. Trade was equivalent, medicine was equivalent, and religion, to use a misnomer, was and is better, more legitimate, here than over there.

How dare he?

Bah!

GRRRRRR,

Martha

Rob replies

Martha,

Thanks for the extensive list of Native American resources. I'm sure it will come in handy.

On the other hand....

>> The facts: The llama, alpaca, vicuna, and guanaco, all South American camel family members <<

I think Diamond meant the llama family of animals. We all know there are several species in the llama family, just as there are several species in the cattle, sheep, and goat families. In fact, I know he meant it, since he refers to llamas, alpacas, vicunas, and guanacos at various times. You're blaming him for my shorthand phrase.

To give just one example, on page 160 he lists "llama and alpaca" and claims "these appear to be well-differentiated breeds of the same species, rather than different species." I'm not sure if he's right about the llama and alpaca, but he is a biologist. Moreover, I wrote this column for general newspaper consumption, so I couldn't begin to go into every nuance of every argument. In a relative sense—one New World family of species vs. many Old World families of species—Diamond's argument is rock-solid.

>> The dog allowed itself to carry and haul burdens, be a friend, and be eaten. <<

A mouse can haul a burden if you hook it up carefully, but we normally mean a certain size of animal by "beast of burden." Diamond defines what he means by "big" domesticated animals, and I also used the word "big." You can quibble with his definition, but you haven't read his book if you think his arguments aren't well-defined.

Besides, the Old World had dogs too, so that isn't a distinction. I was arguing why the Old World conquered the New World, which required noting the differences, not the similarities. If both sides had dogs and there were no other differences, the Old World wouldn't have conquered the New World—right?

>> The Eurasians' animals offered several benefits. They provided protein, wool, and hides. <<

The word "animals" in this paragraph refers to the previous paragraph, which was about domesticated animals. But let me make the connection clear: "The Eurasians' domesticated animals offered several benefits. They provided protein, wool, and hide on a regular, convenient, low-maintenance basis." Does anyone want to argue that hunting a whale or a polar bear is as easy as slaughtering a docile cow? I'd guess the former takes 10, 20, maybe 50 or 100 times more effort than the latter.

>> The following large mammals gave hides, fur, and sometimes meat: <<

Not a single animal on this list was domesticated. I think you may have missed the point. Eurasian cultures also used a long list of undomesticated animals for food, fur, and hides. In addition, they had many more domesticated animals, and the domesticated animals made the difference.

>> beasts of burden in this hemisphere: <<

Look up the definition of "beast" in the dictionary. "Any four-footed animal; esp. one of the larger animals" (emphasis mine). In other words, we don't normally consider dogs, cats, or mice "beasts of burden," even if they can perform some labor.

If it helps any, even my 1944, pre-DNA-discovery dictionary defines "alpaca" as "a kind of llama." So we're not talking about four species of camelids, we're talking about four subspecies of llama. Again, you can quibble with this definition, but don't pretend Diamond made it up out of thin air.

>> Plants domesticated in this hemisphere: <<

Since I enumerated only the large-seeded grasses, your list doesn't address my (or Diamond's) point. High-yield, grass-based crops such as rice, wheat, and corn are the type of plant that sustains most long-term civilizations. The Old World had more of them.

No civilization ever existed primarily on tomatoes or turnips. You can't grow enough of them to feed a large population. You can grow enough rice, wheat, or corn to feed a large population—which is the point.

>> The farmers in this hemisphere -- with or without the propulsion of domestication (of cattle, swine, or horses) <<

Thanks for the rundown, but I'm well aware of the many Native farming cultures in the Western Hemisphere. I've published a comic book spotlighting one of them. The point is that without domesticated animals or high-yield crops, the farming cultures mostly remained small. (The Pueblos are a good example.) These cultures didn't generate a positive feedback loop of the type Diamond described.

>> In addition, the people of this hemisphere as I recall had vast trade empires, moving goods from the Pacific Northwest to Mexico and Maine <<

Yep...small, portable goods such as shells, feathers, or copper trinkets. Contrast this with the bulk shipments of raw materials conveyed between Mediterranean sites constantly. You'll see one trade vastly outweighed the other.

>> and as for complex societies with caste, writing, empire, trade, etc. -- check into the Incan, Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, Toltec, Mixtec empires, and then those up into Guatemala and Honduras, and have a look at the Hopewell culture, the mound builders as they were called, and try checking out the Chacoans, Mesa Verdeans, the trade routes whose roads are still visible today, the trading seafaring societies of the Pacific Northwest . . . <<

I'm very well aware of them, thanks. As you may recall, my site has a gallery of Maya photos, and I argued the pro-Aztec position in my Road to El Dorado debate. My comic presents an Inca-friendly argument in issue #3.

I've also pointed out that the New World trade didn't compare in volume to the Old World trade. If you have specific facts to contradict this claim, please present them. Breadth of trade isn't what we're talking about; depth is.

You mentioned writing, but the Amerindian cultures didn't share the same system of writing, which is again Diamond's point. At one point everyone in Europe began using the Phoenician-derived Greek alphabet. Nothing comparable happened in the Americas.

>> Diamond's just wrong on the facts. Repeatedly. <<

Maybe, but you haven't proved it in this message.

>> I will debate Diamond any day. <<

And I'll defend what I wrote any day. I pored over Diamond's book before attempting to summarize it.

Of course, I've criticized Diamond in other postings—for instance, Guns, Germs, and Steel. Check it out and you'll see my position is hardly one-sided.

>> The principles of man's relationship to society that developed and flourished in this hemisphere have certainly proven to be better -- that's BETTER -- than those of Europe or Asia with the exception of Tibet. <<

Feel free to read through my website before deciding what I believe or don't believe. You'll see I've championed Native cultures in a couple hundred postings. I agree completely that Western civilizations have many flaws and indigenous civilizations have many advantages.

>> Trade was equivalent, medicine was equivalent, and religion, to use a misnomer, was and is better, more legitimate, here than over there. <<

No, yes, and possibly—to the degree one can measure these things.

>> How dare he? <<

How dare he what...try to explain why Native people found themselves wiped out by disease or hunted almost to extinction? I think his explanation is better than the widely-held belief that Western civilization is inherently, morally superior. If you have a third explanation for why Native people found themselves wiped out by disease or hunted almost to extinction, I'd love to hear it.

*****

>> Actually, I am a biologist. <<

I stand corrected. If you'd like to cite a source saying the four Andean camelids are separate species, I'd be overjoyed. And since I'm a professional writer, librarian (MA), and businessman (MBA), you could take my word for the writing, dissemination of information, and trade claims. I don't expect you to, but you could. <g>

>> I dispute Diamond's structure -- that a drives b and without a to drive b you naturally won't get c, a great and true civilization. <<

I await your alternative explanation of why the Old World conquered the New World.

>> this is the closed feedback loop that does not allow any alternative events to occur. <<

I'm not sure what events lead to civilizations that last millennia except domesticated plants and animals, iron-based metallurgy, extensive trade, common writing systems, immunity to disease, and so forth and so on. Since most or all long-lasting civilizations have followed this pattern, the evidence suggests the pattern is necessary.

>> It's specious. And it does imply that the inhabitants of this hemisphere were inferior. <<

No, you've inferred the New World's inhabitants were inferior, according to Diamond, because they didn't have the same resources as the Old World's inhabitants. Diamond said no such thing. You're arguing against a straw-man position that doesn't exist, either in my essay or Diamond's book.

>> I presume you're Jewish. I am Jewish. <<

Yes, I know. No, I'm not Jewish, as I already said. I'm a WASP.

>> Jewish people got wiped out by the Third Reich. Does it follow from that that Jewish people were somehow inferior? <<

No, nor did Diamond or I say Native people were inferior. It does follow that the Jewish people lacked something, or the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. If nothing else, they lacked raw numbers.

>> Or that Jewish people lacked agriculture, domestic animals, trade, or cojones? <<

Rather than asking rhetorical questions, you tell me why the Holocaust happened. Then I'll tell you what the Jews lacked that the Nazis had.

>> That there must be an explanation as to why the Jews let ourselves get wiped out by the Nazis that doesn't paint the Jews as inferior beings? <<

Yes, exactly. Do you think a woman is inferior because a man raped her? The analogy is apt. No, the woman isn't inferior, but she lacked something. The correct word for her is disadvantaged—not inferior.

It might be physical strength or a secure house, but she lacked some advantage over her assailant. Things like rapes and genocide happen for a reason. The question is why.

Only a moron claims a crime victim is to blame for being victimized. A woman isn't to blame for being raped, and Jews and Indians aren't to blame for being decimated. Again, the analogy is apt.

Rob Schmidt
Publisher


* More opinions *
  Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment
  Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail
  See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media
  Political and social developments ripped from the headlines



. . .

Home | Contents | Photos | News | Reviews | Store | Forum | ICI | Educators | Fans | Contests | Help | FAQ | Info


All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.

Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.

Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.