This was a discussion question in my AP world history class. Several students gave their suggestions as to how the world would be different. When I gave my suggestion that it would have had an even worse outcome for Native Americans had their discovery been in the 21st century because the Europeans would have had an ever greater advantage (bombs, tanks, nukes, etc.), my teacher scoffed at me and dismissed it as ‘science fiction’. What are your opinions on this?
Then the Mexicans would speak Chinese.
Your teacher ridicules you, and yet he’s the one who put forth this entirely imaginary/hypothetical scenario. Awesome. It’s his hallucination, and he doesn’t want you ruining it!!
Isn’t this question a bit too speculative for anyone to do an accurate prediction? Either way, the best thing I can think of you may be able to compare it to is the discoveries of Australia, Hawaii, and Alaska which were discoverd a bit later as well as European relationships with India, China, and Africa in the 1700’s and 1800’s.
Some other things, off the top of my head, that can also be somewhat measured when attempting to speculate:
a) The technological progress of pre colonization compared to other areas of the world ( Ottoman’s, Chinese, etc)
b) The effects of colonization and the development of as we know it (the direct effects of technological / social / and economic development that can be measured)
c) Other areas of the world that had the potential to colonize and their attitudes towards indeginous cultures (, Ottomans, )
d) The birth rates and rate of technological / economic growth of indigenous new world cultures.
e) the birth rates of Eurasian / N. African cultures
f) The trends at which Europe was interacting with Asia and , including social attitudes.
That being said, assuming everything you said was true, it seems as if he is trying to passive - aggressively push people in an ideological mindset.
If you wish to try to “call him out on it” you can:
-
Write down other students answers that he agreed with / did not make disparaging remarks towards and show the logical arguments made by the students
-
Compare their logic to the logic you used and the responses the prof made based soley off the logic and arguments on hand. react accordingly to that criterea, in as civil and academic a matter as possible.
That’s a very good answer.
I felt the same way. The teacher was trying to promote the idea that Europe would have been a third-world backwater without the discovery of the Americans due to all the goods that they found there. Another idea that students proposed would be of Chinese colonialism of the Americas. While this isn’t as far-fetched as the first idea, I find it very unlikely due to China’s failure to explore at all after Zheng He, and nothing was preventing the Chinese from coming there even while the Europeans had discovered it. Additionally proposed was that the Native Americans would have closed the technology gap with the Europeans and conquered Europe. This is even more absurd in my opinion to think that a society that hadn’t yet invented the wheel as of the European discovery could have become more technologically advanced than Europe without any prior knowledge of them.
Somewhat related to this, the teacher also cited Guns, Germs, and Steel, perhaps the poorest excuse for a scientific book I have ever bothered to read. Particularly the prof focused on GGS’s theory that the Native Americans were technologically behind Europe because they lacked any potential beasts of burden to use for farming. I was amused when someone pointed out that the American Bison was indigenous to the Americas.
Thank you for the advice!
a) At the time of colonization I think held a comparable position with other “powers” such as the Ottomans and the Chinese. There is simply no evidence for them to be a backwater 3rd world continent. The best I think one could forecast is that Europe, the Mid East/ N Africa, and would develop at a lot more of an even pace.
b) I would still say (if that isn’t counting as Europe) would colonize before , as had a shot at it and then gave up. Also was was showing signs of stagnation by the time the New World was about to be discovered when compared to ?
c) This still doesn’t change the fact that Africa, , and, Oceania Australia all got colonized. Why would we assume Europe wouldn’t heavily colonize Africa, particularly due to ’s willingness to aggressively seek trade routes? (I don’t think) did not show signs of this drive, nor did the Ottomans
d) Did he find the fact that Native Americans would close the tech gap an acceptable answer? As in, he did not make disparaging remarks to whoever gave the answer? Ex: it wasn’t “science fiction”? Out of curiosity was the student talking about the Stone Age tribes of , or the somewhat more advanced cultures of SA?
How could some one think relatively isolated cultures that were already well behind in tech keep up with a much more populated, continuous culture of N. Africa / that had discovered the printing press? What argument was made?
e) While using the premise of Guns, Germs, Steal what would have happened to the natives at a later time when they encountered these new bacteria? Would they have found a way to live through it? How?
Also, what examples can one give of stone age type cultres post 800 AD advancing to the Bronze age without contact from a more advanced culture?
That being said, I think it may be interesting to speculate where some of the more advanced S. American cultures would be, but I would still bet they would lag significantly behind Eurasia.
As I recall from the chapter on China, they had been preoccupied with Mongol border raids and Japanese piracy since they stopped senging expeditions out. They were more isolationist than Europe.
Yes, the teacher was more respectful to that person. Presumably they were referring to the Aztecs/Incas, although even still it is hard to believe they would have gained the technology of Europe.
Really just blind speculation, with less support than I gave for my answer.
I did point out that according to GGS, the Natives’ later development in farming put them at a disadvantage with regard to diseases, which to the teacher’s credit was conceded.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/kelly-s1.1.1.html
Ha, lew rockwell’s site has an article about colonization today. Are you going to pursue this topic further w/ your prof, or just move on?
I wouldn’t say that the instructor is completely off; it does seem to be the case that your perspective is riddled with misconceptions about the development and nature of Native Americans. What you apparently don’t realize is that like “European” society, Native American society was vastly heterogenous and not characterized by any single rate of technological development. The claim that Native Americans lacked the wheel is untrue, though it is true that no Amerindian society utilized the wheel for general transportation purposes due to the somewhat ineffective nature of the device without draft animals such as horses and oxen. And you refer to…the bison? Unlike, say, the water buffalo, the American bison is quite resistant to domestication for the purpose of pack hauling, as early European settlers discovered.
Is there really anything underlying this other than your misunderstanding of the indigenous population of America as a group of primitive savages that did not evolve far past big-game hunting and teepee pitching? What of the fact that thirteenth-century Cahokia rivaled the populations of London and Paris, Tenochtitlan left Spaniards amazed at the sight, Tikal was an indication of Mayan architectural adeptness atop significant achievements in agriculture, astronomy, and mathematics, Cuzco and Machu Picchu the gems of one of the few true empires in existence, powerful forms of societal organization if ultimately ethically deficient ones. When we consider the fact that, contrary to what Avatar may have conveyed, the true conquerors of America were viral microbes rather than vastly superior European technology, in addition to the fact that effectively all early European settlers of various nations were initially parasitically dependent on indigenous society prior to achieving self-sufficiency (with their aid), we get a rather different picture.
This would have been a great post if it was not for your use, ironically, of generalizations/collective terms.
Without discovering potato, the demographics of Europe would be very, very differnt…
I will admit SA civ is not my strong point but still
a) I don’t think anyone claimed that the wheel wasn’t known. The wheel along with clay, paint, cities, walls, tools, paint etc btw are all Stone Age inventions. Heavy, complex beuracratic organization was around since at least early Bronze Age
b) No one claimed them as savages. It is when a student said they would have caught up with in everything (what I assumed a short time) that I found mystified as there is no evidence for it.
c) indeed left the Spaniards amazed. But so would , , etc. Cities from the sixth century BC accomplished the same feats (albeit minus the population inhabiting the city) and would probably wow anyone today. It shows nothing.
d) I think you have a political point that you are attached to; maybe you could explain what it is as you seem to have exaggerated any claims, used a harsh tone, and essentially gave some cut and past speech about natives that everyone has heard since the 3rd grade. I have no concern if some culture hundreds of years ago was inferior to another. I have no European bias (I am not even European). Also, I have not seen Avatar, nor do I care to.
To summarize my actual points, I just see no evidence:
-
Of an SA civ “catching up”/ surpassing Eurasia / in isolation.
-
A reason to believe that SA wouldn’t get colonized / decimated by disease from another Eurasian / N African culture
-
that Europe would turn 3rd world w/o colonizing when it did.
European settlers of various nations were initially parasitically dependent on indigenous society prior to achieving self-sufficiency
This is a common way for anyone to succeed in having a culture survive, be it a divide and conquer strat or just barbarians at the gate. It is how success has been achieved countless times for one group and the downfall of others. What is your point?
There we have the sadly common misconceptions again. The “North American Indians” were nomadic tribes; the “South American Indians” were more advanced empires (still inferior to “European” (as though there’s any homogeneity there) society, but were of course all brutal damn barbarians that ripped hearts out and deserved to die is how it usually runs, and you’ve at least partly subscribed to that…is Cahokia not an example of an urban center that defies any such stereotype? Is the fact that Aztec and Mayan society was North American (with the former not even being Central American), still unseen? 
To kind of sum up I don’t know how you could expect an relativly isoated group of civs with less population, less land, and less resources to match the mass that is Eurasia / N Africa
I also don’t understand why if it is rome and Gauls or Akkadians and Hurrians people can distance themselves and not get political. But when it is Europe and the Americans tempers flare up so easily.
Don’t you see? Anyone who says that Ameroindians were on a lower level of civilization is clearly a racist.
Send me some decent online links if you can, so I can see wher you are comming from. Like I said American civ is not my strong point, I’ll evaluate from there.
I actually meant for that statement to go both ways. Many “right wing” types get all bent out of shape when their notion of the Americans get questioned. I certainly am no fan of the Western bias of history that exists (and it does). I mean just look at how they treat the “Byantine” Empire, for example, it’s a complete joke. But even with something like the Bzantine Empire you could probably have a civil discussion with people about the crap history one learns about it. This does not appear to be the case when talking about Native Americans, as it seems to always be political. And with a passion I hate politics in my history.