Firstly, I do not think that Conrad and Demarest are doing comparative
history in their book. The main portion of the book that actually discusses the
Aztecs, Incas, their ideology, etc. doesn’t really touch upon any other
cultures (however on page 100 they do mention a similarity between the
Greco-Roman pantheon and the Latin American pantheons). They do talk about
other cultures and ideologies in the final chapter of their book, “Ideology and
Cultural Evolution.” After reading through that section of the book however, I
don’t think it has much relevance to the rest of their piece. The final chapter
talks about the Incas and Aztecs a little bit, but focuses more on different
ways of thinking. I would say their overall project is not comparative history,
since they do not use comparisons except
between the Aztecs and Incas themselves in the main chapters.
That said, I believe I have changed my position on comparative
history. I used to think that it was a helpful thing for historians, but I
really do not think so now. It was really hard for me to finish reading Conrad
and Demarest’s book; getting through that final chapter wasn’t easy. It was
hard for me to care or see the correlation between Mesoamerica and the Andean
regions with, for example, Marxism. I thought last night, Marxism wasn’t even
thought of until hundreds of years after the Spanish conquest, it has no place
in this book. This last chapter also confused me. I now think that, as if you’re
speaking to a whole body of historians, comparative history may not always be
helpful. However, it can be helpful in one’s own observations and connections.
For instance, I see a similarity between how the Aztecs and Incas used artwork as
social propaganda and how North Korea used artwork and statuary to influence people.
Because I am familiar with some of North Korea’s history, this comparison makes
sense to me. For someone unfamiliar with North Korea, it would not make sense.
So, depending on the circumstances, comparative history can
be a helpful tool. For the most part though, I agree with what Professor
Bristol said a week or so ago in class – focusing on the culture at hand and
fully understanding that culture is pivotal before making any cultural
comparisons.
First of all I'd like to say you wrote the most unique post. You were the only one who said they actually changed their viewpoint whereas it seems that everyone else was defending the one they had to begin with.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Marxism in the book I think maybe it would help to clarify (or maybe it's just as confusing haha). I believe they invoked the name of Marxism so they could address historical materialism. One of the major points in Marxism was that history depends on economic and material forces instead of moral and ideological forces. I'm sure everyone is aware that Marxism denies the concept of God and religion as important, but before Marxism nobody had ever held the idea so adamantly.
Rather than basing history on abstract subjects (time, space, thought) as it had always been when it was tied to religion, he based it on concrete objects (geography, resources, goods). This view does not necessarily deny ideology, rather, it argues that all ideology is simply an effect and could never be a cause. History, however, is ultimately concerned with thinking people not inanimate objects.
So in some cases it might be that inanimate objects cause people to act a certain way and in others it might be that thinking people acting in a certain way justify a material cause based on its outcome. Justifications then can sometimes be motivations, but motivations can never truly be justifications, and if they are given as such you inevitably reach a controversey about human agency. Surely with history being about people we don't want to completely deny (human) agency as Marx would have us.
It is obvious Conrad and demerest don't believe their project to be comparative history, but it is also not so clear that they werent doing comparative history. Which is probably why the blog posts vary so much in their viewpoints.
The two empires arent actually in the same geographical region as some others have maintained, I personally believe the similarities between the two are better explained by theories of how the Americas were first populated, rather than geographic or temporal proximity.