Phillip Bauserman
History 367
Week 6
The final chapters were very well explained and organized when discussing pre-Columbian imperialism as well as Ideology and cultural evolution. Conrad and Demarest make excellent parallels between the Aztecs and Inca. He does well by describing how they both were small, then conquered a large territory which had large resources. Then expanded through warfare, under the ideals religion and patronage. It is interesting that Conrad and Demarest do not really try to make a case for economic reasons for expansion. Instead they dismiss it. I thought they focused way too much on theories of demographic factors, pressures, etc. They focused way to much of their time expanding on theories created by many authors and then debunking them. Why would they dedicate parts of their chapters to people who they disagree with? Why did they feel it was necessary to challenge them and say this is not true, and prove them wrong on certain ideas some authors had? Immature eh? What do you think? I think they could have emphasized more of their thesis, “the results of Aztec and Inca conquests can be summarized as a series of economic and social benefits flowing downward along lines of political power.” (Conrad &Demarest pg 177).
I feel like this is much more important. They do a great job at summarizing certain points in their book, however it is the sources I am more curious of. They are not writing as anthropologists who are more interested in facts. Instead throughout their book they are more like narrators describing the feelings of whole groups of peoples. Why? Is it me or are they taking history too personal?
Honestly I felt the same way about this book, as a matter in fact I believe that in some instances they did called out other theories. Whatever the case is I feel like they did put their enough information but they could have made it sound more like a history lesson rather than a narrative like you mentioned. I really enjoyed reading this book because it taught me more things about the Aztec and Inca. This blog post is also makes a great point thus making it an +A post.
ReplyDeleteI think you right in your description of the way Conrad and Demarest attacked other theories, but I don’t think this was immature on their part. I believe they made some great argumentative points in their own right while at the same time debunking some of their fellow writers/historians. One way to write a book about history is to make your own arguments and present the way you interpret the facts and primary sources, but another way to go about it is exactly what Conrad and Demarest did, which is to attack other theories to try and disprove what you believe to be false. Yes, that may be less valiant on their part, perhaps they are limiting themselves by not making themselves extremely vulnerable, but I do think they make some interesting arguments.
ReplyDeleteI think history can be personal based on your own beliefs. I am sure everyone at one point or another can recall a time they debated about historical interpretations in a different viewpoint than another person. In a lot of ways I think taking a personal approach to history is what defines a book or thesis statement within a book or historical paper.
I do see the argument that analytical books should be based, for the most part, on factual evidence. However, history at best can only be interpreted.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world, history would a set of non-controversial facts. Unfortunately it is instead interpreted at every level depending on who is interpreting the history. There would be no way for Conrad and Demarest to only present facts without having a personal influence in their writing. If that is the type of writing one is searching for, they should be reading primary sources.
Conrad and Demarest do discuss factual information in this chapter while also mixing in general assumptions. This is an analytical book and it is the author’s job to take a deep gaze and evalute the events based on actual facts. As mentioned, it is interesting that the author’s make it a point to correct other historians. One can only wonder that the next generation of historians will be correcting Conrad and Demarest.
Even if controversial, history is always interpreted. This particular chapter is no different. I believe Conrad and Demarest are qualified enough to make these assumptions and I wouldn’t want to read it otherwise. History will always be flawed in a sense and open to ideas. The professional historian must try to be as objective as possible and try to maintain the most reasonable interpretations. I believe this is exactly what Conrad and Demarest have done.