The History Book Club discussion

Another book which might shed additional light about the Incas and their modus operandi is the following: (it was featured on Nova)

by Terence N. D'Altroy (no photo)

I think that it is hard to fathom how huge this empire was - on a smaller scale - but similar to the Roman Empire.



By 1532, when Pizarro invaded, the Inca Empire stretched from what is now southern Colombia all the way to central Chile

D'Altroy states: "It stretched 300,000 square miles - It was about 2,400 miles from north to south. That would take us from the area just at the border of Ecuador and Colombia down to about 50 miles south of modern Santiago, Chile. In terms of square miles, we're probably talking something like 300,000 square miles. In population, estimates range from maybe six to 12 million people; my own estimate would put it somewhere around 10 to 12 million. That would make it perhaps the biggest empire in all of the indigenous Americas before the Spanish arrival."

Kathy in terms of your question - D'Altroy stated: "The Incas - worked very hard in diplomacy, negotiating relationships with neighbors or with people who were targets for incorporation into their expanding territory, and they tried to work out amicable relationships through gift exchanges, marital exchanges, or political alliances. Failing that, they would threaten those people with military conquest, and that having failed, they would actually undertake military conquest. So there was a combination of diplomacy and inducement, coercion, and militarism all wrapped up into one strategic package.

I think there is a major difference - the Incas actually did use relationship building and diplomacy first and did try to maintain the cultures and the local infrastructures - they became like local lords - the Incas actually laid a structure of imperial rule on top of an existing system of local societies, and then tried to argue that it was really nothing more than the local community in a grand expansive pattern.

Now the Spaniards - at least in terms of what we have learned so far - were more interested in taking everything by force it wanted and in dividing the spoils by whatever means necessary with killing and execution being the option of first resort versus the last option on the table - they came for spoils and their percentage of whatever they could obtain by force, They did not at least so far appear to want to assist the Incas or the local peoples in developing a better life for themselves at the same time that they were assuming control - what they had their eye on was how much richer they would be at the end of this conquest.

Source: Book cited above

I got the same impression as Bentley in that Cusi Yupanqui made alliances with other peoples to build up a larger army (page 45) and battle the Chancas. He basically united multiple groups and built a large infrastructure with these multiple groups working together as one kingdom. The Spanish seemed to come in and pillage and take over without a thought to how these people would go on in the future. They were not out to support a kingdom of Incas.

I was also fascinated in how the Inca rulers gained their title. Brothers fighting to see who was worthy to take over the kingdom. If they were competent enough to take the throne, they should be competent enough to rule. It was fair game among brothers.

I read Chapter Three last night and thought immediately of the similarities between the Spanish conquest and the Inca conquest. Often times it seems like history paints the Aztecs and Incas as peaceful, bucolic communities that were morally abducted by a superior (at least technologically) culture. Clearly the same rules (or lack thereof) of conquest were applied by the small Inca minority to neighboring tribes covering a huge swath of territory.
To the extent we ask ourselves about the morality of past events like the conquest of the Inca Empire it bears remembering that power and resources were wrested from the weaker by the stronger for a very long time and that many victims were at one point or another perpetrators. Some could argue that organized religion has been a powerful tool for curbing some of that over the centuries as well as being an instigator (First Crusade) or a silent observer.

For those of us in the U.S. I think it will be an interesting comparison as we read this book to look at what the Spanish did in central and South America compared to what the colonizers of North America did there. One factoid you can look at is the ethnic makeup of modern states.

According to "Ethnic groups of Peru". CIA Factbook. Retrieved October 30, 2013" the following is the ethnic makeup of modern day Peru:

45% Amerindian
37% Mestizo
15% White
2% others[1]

Compare that to the US according to the US census Bureau:

Race/Ethnicity
(as given by the 2010 Census)
By race:
White 72.4%
African American 12.6%
Asian 4.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.9%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2%
Other 6.2%
Multiracial (2 or more) 2.9%
By ethnicity:
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 16.3%
Non-Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 83.7%

This is not to say that the Spanish version of conquest was moral or ethical by any means. However, less than 1% of the US population in Amerindian compared to 45% in Peru which also has another 37% mixed European/Amerindian.

You will be assimilated or you will die. (Grin). I like your explanation, i.e. Spanish want gold, Incas want people. It doesn't get more straightforward than that.

I think the point that was made in post 6 was a bit more iterative than that conclusion. It wasn't so cut and dry.

The Incas tried to negotiate, conciliate, merge, form alliances through marriage and partnerships, and only as a last resort much further down the line would they have resorted to all out extermination if that is the word to be used. I am not sure I entirely agree with MacQuarrie's sentence on page 45.

The Spaniards used "the ends justified the means" modus operandi and to the "victors belong the spoils" approach before they set foot onto their ships for the Incas part of the world - a very distasteful premeditated approach not much different I would add than the Somalian pirates which you saw depicted in Captain Philip (a true story by the way) and something that the Somalians have done quite often before and after during modern times.

Mark,
I thought that your statistics comparing the percentage of Amerindians in Peru and the United States are very telling. Although frequently brutal, perhaps the Spanish were not so bad after all.

I agree with you completely about the danger of romanticizing the Inca. As you pointed out, the historical pattern of strong wresting control from the weak applied equally to the Inca conquest of other groups.

The times were very brutal, and I don't think that the Inca means of conquest were that gentle.
According to Charles Mann, in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, the Inca centralized the ownership of the land in the state, and the peasants were forced to work many days on state projects - often very far from their homes. (page 81). The Inca rulers also liked to shift populations around. When they conquered a new place, they would relocate settlers from another area to the new area and give them land. They had learned the advantages of divide and conquer.

The Inca rulers traditionally murdered brothers along with all their wives and children, and anyone else who could possibly be a threat to their power once they assumed the throne.

Of course, the Inca Atahualpa did not shy away from brutality. The author tells us that Atahualpa ordered the execution of an entire battalion of soldiers because they had shown fear when De Soto made his display of horsemanship in front of the court (p. 67).

MacQuarie also tells us that "Tomorrow, Atahualpa had decided, he would capture the foreigners, kill most of them, and castrate the rest to use as eunuchs to guard his harem." (pp. 67-68)

Glad I didn't live in those times. If I had, I would definitely have maintained a low profile - no riding off for thrills and adventure for me.

by Charles C. Mann

Ann you are correct - the Incas - "I do not think" - have been romanticized in any of the publications but neither should the Spaniards have been; frankly I remember studying in school about the great Spanish explorers - and not a word about the Incas or their accomplishments.

And of course - "Two wrongs do not make a right." But I do think that the statement on page 45 might be painting them a bit more harshly than deserved. Considering that the Spaniards have often been extolled in history books of old - which gives some credibility to the point I am presenting of their being discrepancies. And that folks need to read critically and evaluate and not take at face value every sentence as being the gospel truth. And I know that all of you are doing just that. But a great discussion point isn't it?

Those times were tough - safer to stay at home (smile)

Note: Thank you for your citation of another external source. Your citation is perfect.

Update: One other point - Ann you stated the following: Although frequently brutal, perhaps the Spanish were not so bad after all.

I think the conclusion that I came to was different - my conclusion was more along the lines that in our own country - our Native American population was brutally treated. Not many folks would argue with that conclusion either. But that does not allow the Spaniards to be "off the hook" - their actions were premeditated before they got on the ship.

As they say, believe half of what you read and none of what you hear. :-D Good points and a reminder to consider who wrote these explanations of history.

Very true Teri - remember what I said on thread one - the writers of history paint the picture and weave the story to be told and remembered and they can say that history will be kind to them because they wrote it.

I agree with you that Pizarro and the other Spanish explorers were extremely brutal. On page 64, MacQuarie says that Pizarro had a chief and his main men burned to death on the mere rumor that they might be planning an attack.

So true, that two wrongs do not make a right, and we can never know for sure what happened because the victors write the histories.

How wonderful if would have been if the Incas had left some written history. The author says that the knot tying they developed seems to have been used mostly for accounting and as memory jogs for oral history.

On the other hand -
I also believe that we have to try to understand historical figures in the context of their own times - ugly as they were.

First point - they were quite advanced - even did surgery.

Second point: In terms of my moderator's point above. Nobody is extolling the Incas, the Spaniards or the North Americans in terms of our own Native American population. But the Incas did strive to preserve the local cultures and they did try other methods first. It appears that the Spaniards were prepared when they got on the boat that they were going to strike a lethal blow. The North Americans did have some peaceful times with the first settlers - things did turn sour and policies like those of Andrew Jackson did not make things right - in fact it further decimated the Native American population - but it is also true that the Spaniards were more brutal or as brutal as an end result; but their acts were all premeditated - so they are certainly worse than the others in that regard or at their best - as bad as the other two.

It appears that history gave them a free ride and was kind to them because they wrote the history.

I do agree that it would have been nice to have written accounts from the Incas.

Bentley wrote: "First point - they were quite advanced - even did surgery.

Second point: In terms of my moderator's point above. Nobody is extolling the Incas, the Spaniards or the North Americans in terms of ..."

The Mayflower by Philbrick did a nice job of describing early interactions between the pilgrims and the Native American tribes in that part of New England. It seemed the writing was on the wall even then but the story turns somewhat on a failure of the native tribes to recognize the problem until it was too late for them to do anything lasting to counteract.

Atahualpa's instincts failed him by allowing the Spanish to proceed unabated into the Andes due, it seems, to overconfidence. If I were him I am sure I would have felt the same way. The Spanish certainly would have been back, and in force, but his decision not to intervene was a tactical and strategic disaster for his empire.

I wonder how things would have been if his plan to seize and breed horses worked? Clearly, like any despot or emperor, a significant focus for him seems to have been on gaining, expanding and hold power. I also can't help but wonder if both the Aztec and Inca Empire collided prior to the Europeans showing up what would have resulted? Development more along a European model from the competition and exchange of ideas?

There is no doubt that the victors write the histories which is especially problematic is a case where the vanquished left little or no written account of their experience of those events. And this needs to be taken into account when reading their accounts. My experience has been that most teachers/professors of History have been hard on the Spanish and with good reason. It is hard to defend their behavior as it is hard to defend any power that seeks to wrest resources from another. Maybe this has been lessened somewhat by some being so interested in the fact that very small contingents of fighters were able to overwhelm huge armies. Even technology seems to be too feeble an answer to explain how 400 to 1 odds can be overcome. Certainly there had to be some tactical and strategic skill at play which is impressive even if the ends were not.

An interesting angle might be what drives men like Pizarro and Atahualpa. Power, in one form or another, but why? Whether it be Roman, Incan, Spanish, British, Ottoman, Egyptian, German…. fill in the list, they all sought power over others to their own benefit even when they may have convinced themselves that their “way of life” was really in the best interests long-term of those they conquered, or needed to act in order to “defend” their way of life from real or perceived threats. If the Spanish or Inca has brutally repressed other people because they were starving and needed their food/agriculture would that have made it OK?

Kathy and Mark, I love this conversation and discussion because we are not only reading what the author has written but critically evaluating his words. We as "thinking and critical readers" can decide as we read every sentence what we agree with, what we don't agree with and why. Based upon other data sources and/or other reasons. We do not have to believe that just because something is said or written that it is necessarily the gospel on that subject. Mark, you raise some very interesting collateral points which I agree with. The Mayflower and the Pilgrims' New World by Philbrick is one of the original books that we discussed at the HBC. Very well done account.

You and everyone else who posted on this thread have provided some thought provoking discussion and I love that too.

Mark, one other point, when we add any ancillary book we must do a proper citation:

by Nathaniel Philbrick

Kathy wrote: "Mark, I love your question, "An interesting angle might be what drives men like Pizarro and Atahualpa. Power, in one form or another, but why?"

I have been wondering this myself and so far, really..."

Sorry about that. I will look up the instructions for doing the correct citation.

Mark,
You asked some very interesting questions. Lots to think about in this discussion, and definitely no easy answers.

I don't believe that Pizarro's conquest of the Inca's was at all predetermined. He took a huge risk, and almost miraculously succeeded. People like him must thrive on risk and adventure.

As for Atahualpa, he was treated like a god, and seems to have made the mistake of actually believing he was one. As you pointed out, his self-confidence was obviously a huge error on his part.

You mentioned that the Inca could have acquired horses. The Indians in North America did acquire horses, as well as guns, from the Spanish. This made many of them formidable opponents. Under other circumstances, the Inca could have done the same.

In many ways, the Incas were very advanced. According to Charles C. Mann in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus Inca armor (made of very strong fiber) was almost as effective as that of the Spanish, and much more comfortable. The Incas had wonderful roads, whose many many steps straight up mountains were much more suited to llamas than to horses, and they also had some effective weapons in bolas and in burning stones launched by slings. (pp. 91-94).

The big disadvantages they had were disunity and disease.

One of Mann's main themes in his book is that the native populations were decimated by European diseases BEFORE their conquerors actually arrived. Not only did this make it very difficult for them to resist, it also also gave the Europeans a distorted idea of how advanced their cultures had been.

Pizarro encountered Atahualpa in 1532. As MacQuarrie pointed out, Atahualpa's father had previously been killed by small pox, along with his heir and other relatives. His death resulted in a civil war, which Atahualpa finally seemed to have won.

Mann points out that not only the emperor was killed by smallpox, but thousands of others as well. He cites anthropologist Henry F. Dobyns who speculated that the "empire's population 'may well have been halved during this epidemic.'" (p. 97)

We can only imagine the severe social dislocations all these many deaths caused before Pizarro’s conquest. Pizarro arrived at an opportune time.



by Charles C. Mann

(no image) Peru: A Cultural History by Henry F. Dobyns (no photo)

Ann, I have to respectfully disagree about dear Pizarro (smile). Although he believed that he was backed by his king and God - he felt with certitude that he was in the right to hunt the Incas. And yes some other events made the fate of the Incas happen sooner rather than later.

Historians have determined that Pizarro was certainly planning their conquest and demise. Now you interestingly use the term "predetermined" - nobody could predetermine if he was going to be successful before he actually did it - but if he had guns, horses and armor and the Incas only had rudimentary weapons; it would appear that the Incas' (good or bad) fate was sealed. If I was a betting person - I would think that the Incas fate had been sealed - it was just a matter of time before the cat caught its prey.

I think a great book which explains this extremely well is one that we have discussed at the History Book Club and I would advise anyone who doubts that the poor Incas' fates were sealed to read that book. Whether the Incas were good or bad is irrelevant, they were not mercenaries and they were no match for Guns, Germs and Steel (guns, armor, horses, germs). They did not have access nor had they been exposed to these things. The Incas never saw people carried by animals before. The only lucky aspect for Pizarro was that by virtue of his geographic location (Europe) and history, the Europeans were the first people to acquire guns, germs and steel and not the other way around - otherwise the Incas would have been fortuitous. The Incas fate was sealed from the very first day that Pizarro went looking for them and looking for them he did. The Inca chief just seemed to make it an easier conquest with a strategic mistake - but it would have happened sooner or later.

If folks have not read the following book, it explains a lot.

by Jared Diamond

Marc - you mentioned power? Do you think that corruption of power deludes leaders into believing that they are smarter and more invincible than their enemies or adversaries and that is what seems to foster strategic errors/lapses of judgement?

Example: the Inca king Atahualpa

Bentley,
I trust it is all right to disagree here. That's what makes the discussions interesting - for me at least.

We both agree (surprise! :-) that Pizzaro felt that he was totally in the right to hunt the Incas and do whatever necessary to conquer them. I personally find many of the Spanish actions appalling.

I also agree with you that the Incas were doomed in the long run.

However, I respectfully contend that Pizzaro's personal victory over them was not at all inevitable. After all, he did only have 168 soldiers. Pizarro's boldness, Atahualpa's blindness to the risk, and Pizarro's ability to capture the emperor were all critical. It seems to me that the capture was at least partially attributable to luck. I retain MacQuarrie's image of the Inca nobles holding up Atahualpa's litter with their shoulders after their hands had been cut off. What if he had escaped or been killed in error?

I loved Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. It has been a long time since I read it, and I searched for it at the beginning of this discussion. Unfortunately, I must have lent it out - which should teach me never to let go of the books I really think are valuable.

by Jared Diamond

Kathy,
I corrected my citation of a book and author without photos and I think now I have it right.

Ann you make me smile - of course - having read some other books in addition to this one as well as primary sources - I tend to feel that the conquistadors were no better and/or worse than the Somalian pirates are today. No opportunities, no money, no way to improve your lot so you have to attach yourself to something that will help you survive or improve your lot in life - Pizarro had some similarities aside from the fact that he was told that he was basically "riding for God" which seemed to him to give him license to kill and pillage in the name of God. Also something that we still see today.

It is certainly difficult to believe that anything is "inevitable" but given the circumstances - it was just a matter of time for the Incas. So they were fated to succumb to outside forces who had the guns, the horses, the armor and maybe the germs (smile) that could annihilate the Indians.

I think along the same lines as Diamond. Diamond is not a psychic but if he was a betting man - to him it appeared to be a fait accompli.

You are correct everybody is entitled to their opinion - I do think the history still supports the ideas that I presented and I am not being "soft" on the Incas either - but Pizarro and the others should not have been extolled either - and it proves the point that was made by Churchill and whose quote I posted for the members in thread one. That it is very true about historians, that how history will view a people, culture or person and whether history will be kind or not to them may be dependent upon who writes the history.

I would also say as Diamond contends that many believe that if it were not Pizarro - it would have been another European like Pizarro who had guns, horses, armor, steel, germs who would have overcome the indigenous tribes in the same time frame. The clock was already ticking.

I am in agreement of course that Diamond absolutely honed in on the Incas and the Pizarro series of events so the book would have been interesting for you to refer back to. Some folks forget to return what they have borrowed - I know the feeling well.

Jared Diamond

Winston
Churchill

I enjoyed that quote from Winston Churchill:"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it". It is an excellent reminder that our sources often can't be trusted.

I had to smile when I read the quotation because after my husband slogged through Churchill's six volume history of World War II, he started reading other books about the subject. He was chagrsined to discover that the great man was often not entirely accurate when it came to portraying his own role in events.

But then, he did warn us.

Winston Churchill

Ann wrote: " When they conquered a new place, they would relocate settlers from another area to the new area and give them land. They had learned the advantages of divide and conquer."

This seems to be a tactic that is almost universal in the history of warfare. It was not uncommon in many parts of the world to take the elite of a conquered people and remove them from their homeland to the lands of the conqueror leaving the less educated and those without many inherent leadership skills behind to farm the land and manufacture goods.

It is interesting to find the same tactic being used "naturally" by the Incas who would have had no awareness of the history of Near East, European or Asian methods of warfare.

Ann wrote: "However, I respectfully contend that Pizzaro's personal victory over them was not at all inevitable. After all, he did only have 168 soldiers. Pizarro's boldness, Atahualpa's blindness to the risk, and Pizarro's ability to capture the emperor were all critical. It seems to me that the capture was at least partially attributable to luck."

I kept thinking the whole time I was reading about this encounter how it would have been so "easy" for the Incas to win this one. They knew that the Spanish posted guards at night which leads me to believe they had scouted the Spanish positions to some extent.

80,000 soldiers could have easily overcome 168 had they kept their heads but lets admit it; we would likely turn tail and run if we had never seen or heard a cannon or firearm fired. It was de Soto charging the troops all over again.

Still they could have taken them in their sleep. They could have surrounded the courtyard and starved the Spanish out. It was the surprise that made the difference...a wished for tactical advantage of every military leader that ever lived. Surprise was the key!

@ Mark. I found the stats you posted about current ethnicity and race interesting. As I was looking at them I was wondering if the numbers might have been affected by the circumstances of settlement in these regions.

North America was colonized. Colonists came from multiple countries, speaking multiple languages. They came from diverse religious backgrounds. Some came to avoid religious persecution while others came to avoid persecution resulting from their race or nationality.

The settled in colonies and grew outward as populations increased and more land was required.

Central and Western South America were not colonized in the true sense of the word. Balboa established a town on the Isthmus of Panama not necessarily as a colony but as a base of operations. Pizarro did the same thing near Tumbec. The Spanish did not seek to settle and they did not grow their land holdings as needed by an increasing population. They received land grants for their part in the conquest. They oversaw vast amounts of land and native peasants who worked that land for the gain of the Spanish lord. So I think this may help explain some of the differences in the numbers presented. South America was not seeing the same constant stream of colonists from Spain that we see elsewhere. In North America there was as steady stream of colonists coming from Europe and from multiple European nations and locations.

I was thinking the same thing that Michael pointed out about the differences in the colonizing focus between North and South America. Not sure there was an equivalent Spanish land rush in mountainous Peru like what happened in the United States. But point taken that the Spanish seem to want to extract resources as oppose to setting up a new home in Peru thus leaving the indigenous population more intact.

I apologize if this as this thought may be Nyquil induced. ;-) I woke up this morning thinking about what it might have been like had those of us in this group come of age in the early 1500's in Spain. Would we have ended up joining one of these expeditions? Been the leader that put together the expedition corporation to take on a conquest? Can we honestly say that we would act any differently because we would have grown up with the same cultural imperatives as the conquistadors. We likely would have had the same prejudices and we likely would have been members of the Roman Catholic church.

Second thought: What would our prejudices have been? Dare I meddle? What are our prejudices now? I have now turned 50 and this book in some way has reminded me that I look at certain people groups much differently now than I did at 25. I think it is safe to say when we get honest with ourselves in the dark of night just prior to sleep that we have at least some small prejudice in us toward some group, even if it is passive.

Third thought: While we can find places in the world today where people are being exploited by stronger groups of people; is there a parallel between the exploitation of people in the book we now look at and our exploitation of natural resources? They certainly took advantage of natural resources in the days of the conquistador as well but we may be just as guilty in some ways of wanting to exploit our resources rather than managing our resources. Just a thought.

Now, before I get labelled I do not see myself as an environmentalist but rather a conservationist. I think resources are there to be used but they are there to be used and managed wisely.

Just some thought to start my day.

Kathy,
Good point that Pizarro and his men knew all about Cortes' defeat of the Aztecs, accomplished with very few men. His capture of the Aztec leader had to be an inspiration.

Cortes had powerful native allies, enemies of the Aztecs. I wonder if we will see that in Peru as the Spanish struggle to hold onto their conquest.

Michael,
So correct - surprise was absolutely critical.

Do you think Atahualpa was just too relaxed after he had finally won the war against his brother?

Michael and Mark,
Interesting comments on the effect of different immigration patterns on those statistics.

The number of women among the immigrants would also have been very important. There was much more mixture of white and natives in Latin America than in the U.S., where whole families often moved to the colonies.

I've just finished reading this weeks assignment so I'm a little behind on all your comments. But I am loving the authors style of taking so much info that could potentially be boring for some and making it an exciting page turner.

As I read books like this I often find myself trying to chose a side. Who was right and who was wrong and I'm seeing that is tough to answer. On one hand some of the spaniards truly believed what they were doing was in the name of Gods will, although most seemed to be doing it out of greed, while on the other side of the spectrum the Incas were also coming fresh off a major battle that won them riches but they also were living in the name of their God.

I find it hard to justify the shear brutality of the way the spaniards slaughtered the Incas but it seemed as some have already commented that through luck they took them by surprise and I think through shock just butchered their way to conquest.

Who do you think was wrong or right? Or was anyone?

Ann wrote: "I enjoyed that quote from Winston Churchill:"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it". It is an excellent reminder that our sources often can't be trusted.

I had to smile when I read ..."

(smile)

Kathy that's a good point. It's an example of survival of the fittest. I guess sometimes its not a question of right or wrong, sadly it's who is weak or strong. The spaniards although fewer in numbers proved stronger I think because of their weapons and horses.

And so true Kathy even today with Ukraine and the Russians or parts of Africa (genocide) and even in nature and science.

Michael,
I liked your remarks:
"I woke up this morning thinking about what it might have been like had those of us in this group come of age in the early 1500's in Spain. Would we have ended up joining one of these expeditions? Been the leader that put together the expedition corporation to take on a conquest? Can we honestly say that we would act any differently because we would have grown up with the same cultural imperatives as the conquistadors."

Trying to put yourself in their place means trying to understand them. It doesn't require that we approve of their actions.

Ann wrote: "Michael,
I liked your remarks:
"I woke up this morning thinking about what it might have been like had those of us in this group come of age in the early 1500's in Spain. Would we have ended up jo..."

I totally agree...we must attempt to understand...cannot by any means approve of the actions taken. I don't approve of some of the Inca brutality we are reading either. Neither of the groups in this study Inca or Spanish are all that much different than others in history.

Related to the comment above regarding "survival of the fittest." WARNING this could be a rabbit trail: "When it comes to humanity why do we tend not to apply the rule survival of the fittest? This may be a question for a different thread altogether. To truly accept this principle as a natural law would be to not really be all that concerned with brutality anywhere wouldn't it? [playing devil's advocate here a bit].

I would not have acted like one of the Spaniards and I think many can honestly say that - would find that distasteful and certainly would never have come over in one of those boats (smile). I know I would have stayed in England or Spain.

I understand that maybe they may have had other motivations that have been aptly described by many - but no - brutality is brutality.

Nobody is condoning similar actions by the Incas - but we cannot glorify the Spaniards either (that is the point being made). Let us not let any of them off the hook.

You do have to walk in the shoes of the folks living during these periods and you do have to understand that all of these times were different as Michael pointed out,

So whether we are talking about the Incas, the Native American Indians, the Spaniards, the North American settlers, or any other group we do have to understand the period in history and what their culture was dictating at the time - no matter how abhorrent in our current time period.

I think we can move on with the discussion and discuss some other points that Kathy made in message 54. Very powerful quote Kathy.

Michael wrote: "Related to the comment above regarding "survival of the fittest." WARNING this could be a rabbit trail: "When it comes to humanity why do we tend not to apply the rule survival of the fittest? T..."

True - nature shows no mercy. One thing that I want to point out is that Kathy in her quote was not necessarily referring to the survival of the fittest - that phrase was introduced by Aly in the following post.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" originated with the natural selection discussions of the past. Spencer and Darwin first used that phrase and that is not what Kathy's quote was indicating. I think that quote means that right is only a question between equals of power - while the strong are basically able to push their agenda while the weak have to suffer in silence (in so many words). And certainly that phrase has evolved to have other connotations. I think that humans are allegedly an evolved species which should also support elements of intelligence, understanding, compassion and the like which do not always appear as characteristics of other animals in the animal kingdom. But a nice sidebar discussion (smile) which has a connection to Kathy's discussion idea.

Michael you might want to read The Metaphysical Club if you like those kind of discussions (smile) - if you have not done that already. You may be a budding philosopher.

by Louis Menand

Bentley wrote: "Marc - you mentioned power? Do you think that corruption of power deludes leaders into believing that they are smarter and more invincible than their enemies or adversaries and that is what seems ..."

I thought it was very interesting that the author brought up how easy it would have been for Atahualpa to just kill the Europeans. After all, there were so few of them and he had so many men. I think the reason they were able to capture him is that he was arrogant enough to believe he couldn't be touched and they had technology (however inaccurate) that he couldn't even fathom. If he had taken offense and had them captured or put to death at once, things might have gone quite differently.

I think the Spaniards were also arrogant, believing that God was on their side and they were entitled - but if you took the strength of that belief away, I personally would not have had the guts to try to take the emperor.

Robyn,
I would have been absolutely terrified. Of course, as a non-risk taker, I would never have been on that expedition!

Kathy,
You asked "What are some of the actions of the Incas that you found most interesting that showed their strong believe in the sun god and the divinity of the royal family?"

I think the gold plated walls and gold decorations were mostly found in the sun god's temples. I was surprised that everything Atahualpa touched in any way had to be so carefully disposed of. Those litters of Inca nobles carrying Atahualpa so he would not touch the ground must have been rather awe inspiring. If I remember correctly, he never looked at people directly because of his exalted position.

Whew! Hard to believe that he had just defeated his rival brother in a major military campaign. His generals must have done the dirty work, or maybe he became "divine" after the victory.

Sorry, Kathy. I'll be more careful. I bought this book before vacation, intending to read only the first few chapters, but I couldn't stopped reading! Pretty soon I'll be even with you folks again since I have a lot to go.

Interesting question about how the divinity passed on from one generation to another since the emperor had so many sons. I suppose the winner got to have the last word.

By saying survival on the fittest I wasn't trying to bring Darwin into the conversation by any means.

Sadly I don't think I fit into this club.

Aly,
I thought your comments indicated that you agree with the ironic saying "might makes right." In other words, morality doesn't come into play very much in these power struggles.

Did I interpret your comments correctly? I hope you will stick around too.

Honestly I just feel a little dumb compared to you all lol

what I was trying to say was that it seems the Spanish had the advantage in my opinion only because of there weapons since obviously they were way out numbered and would've been defeated in different circumstances. As for morals it is hard to believe they had any considering the way they butchered the natives but I don't know if they truly believed they were doing gods work or if they used that as a way to justify their actions.

The issue of resources versus population in an interesting one. I know in SE Asia, competing empires were much more interested in acquiring large populations over attaining territory. The reason for this was that was no lack of undeveloped, unpopulated land – it was there for taking. However, in order to support the elite, ruling class, this land had to be cleared and worked to provide food. As cities grew and their middle class (traders, craftsmen, priests, etc.) and their elites grew with them, there was a corresponding increase in the demand for food. Thus, SE Asia empires, as they stretched would capture neighboring people, and for lack of better word, herd them back and put them to work on expanding arable land.

(Apologies, but I am reading on a Kindle and the page numbers are not available for reference. Alternatively, I cite the Kindle location)

In this week's reading, I was most struck by the multiple references to torture, which was already foreshadowed in last week's reading when the author introduced us to the conquest company "that was predicated upon murder, torture, and plunder." (Chapter 2, location 466).

What is it that drives a human being to torture another? Torture was inflicted at the hands of both the Spaniards and the Incas.

It is frightening to think it was used as a means of punishment & humiliation, which seems to empower the individual inflicting the torture: "Even in victory, however, Atahualpa's severity with those who dared challenge him was evident when General Atoq was captured. Atoq was first tortured and eventually executed with darts and arrows. Athahualpa then ordered Atoq's skull to be fashioned into a gilded drinking cup..."
(Chapter 3, location 885)

We also see it used for information extraction: "...the natives they questioned and tortured told them that Atahualpa commanded a large army."
(Chapter 3, location 990)

Torture is a horrifying aberration in the development of the human psyche. It is not relegated to any specific time or culture. Sadly, it is a timeless evil.