liberal feminism more like “capitalism: it’s not just for boys”
ⒶⒶⒶⒶ lillian ⒶⒶⒶⒶlover of sweaters and social justice.19, native new orleanian going to reed college in portland, oregon. i like embroidery and intersectionality theory and feminist thought and puppies and politics and teen girl witches and trees and lady singers and skanking and coffee shop libraries and vegan cookies and polysyndeton.
i’ve been doing research about jobs/companies that are accepting of trans and the like since i’m going job hunting again next month, and i found this list, which lists trans-friendly businesses. it links to this page, a directory for employers.
tagging so people can see it, i figured this might come in handy for some people!
I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as “presentism” by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian. Some early colonists gave the same answer. Horrifying the leaders of Jamestown and Plymouth, scores of English ran off to live with the Indians. My ancestor shared their desire, which is what led to the trumped-up murder charges against him—or that’s what my grandfather told me, anyway.
As for the Indians, evidence suggests that they often viewed Europeans with disdain. The Hurons, a chagrined missionary reported, thought the French possessed “little intelligence in comparison to themselves.” Europeans, Indians said, were physically weak, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly, and just plain dirty. (Spaniards, who seldom if ever bathed, were amazed by the Aztec desire for personal cleanliness.) A Jesuit reported that the “Savages” were disgusted by handkerchiefs: “They say, we place what is unclean in a fine white piece of linen, and put it away in our pockets as something very precious, while they throw it upon the ground.” The Micmac scoffed at the notion of French superiority. If Christian civilization was so wonderful, why were its inhabitants leaving?
Like people everywhere, Indians survived by cleverly exploiting their environment. Europeans tended to manage land by breaking it into fragments for farmers and herders. Indians often worked on such a grand scale that the scope of their ambition can be hard to grasp. They created small plots, as Europeans did (about 1.5 million acres of terraces still exist in the Peruvian Andes), but they also reshaped entire landscapes to suit their purposes. A principal tool was fire, used to keep down underbrush and create the open, grassy conditions favorable for game. Rather than domesticating animals for meat, Indians retooled whole ecosystems to grow bumper crops of elk, deer, and bison. The first white settlers in Ohio found forests as open as English parks—they could drive carriages through the woods. Along the Hudson River the annual fall burning lit up the banks for miles on end; so flashy was the show that the Dutch in New Amsterdam boated upriver to goggle at the blaze like children at fireworks. In North America, Indian torches had their biggest impact on the Midwestern prairie, much or most of which was created and maintained by fire. Millennia of exuberant burning shaped the plains into vast buffalo farms. When Indian societies disintegrated, forest invaded savannah in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Texas Hill Country. Is it possible that the Indians changed the Americas more than the invading Europeans did? “The answer is probably yes for most regions for the next 250 years or so” after Columbus, William Denevan wrote, “and for some regions right up to the present time.”"
Quoted from the essay "1941" written by Charles C. Mann, about the major impact that Native Americans had on the Americas (ecologically and culturally) before white people invaded, bringing their diseases and shoving Christianity down the Indians’ throats and murdering them and banning their cultures.
Check out the whole piece (which is rather long). (P.S thanks to @cazalis for sending me this great link)
Human history, in Crosby’s interpretation, is marked by two world-altering centers of invention: the Middle East and central Mexico, where Indian groups independently created nearly all of the Neolithic innovations, writing included. The Neolithic Revolution began in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago. In the next few millennia humankind invented the wheel, the metal tool, and agriculture. The Sumerians eventually put these inventions together, added writing, and became the world’s first civilization. Afterward Sumeria’s heirs in Europe and Asia frantically copied one another’s happiest discoveries; innovations ricocheted from one corner of Eurasia to another, stimulating technological progress. Native Americans, who had crossed to Alaska before Sumeria, missed out on the bounty. “They had to do everything on their own,” Crosby says. Remarkably, they succeeded.
When Columbus appeared in the Caribbean, the descendants of the world’s two Neolithic civilizations collided, with overwhelming consequences for both. American Neolithic development occurred later than that of the Middle East, possibly because the Indians needed more time to build up the requisite population density. Without beasts of burden they could not capitalize on the wheel (for individual workers on uneven terrain skids are nearly as effective as carts for hauling), and they never developed steel. But in agriculture they handily outstripped the children of Sumeria. Every tomato in Italy, every potato in Ireland, and every hot pepper in Thailand came from this hemisphere. Worldwide, more than half the crops grown today were initially developed in the Americas.
Maize, as corn is called in the rest of the world, was a triumph with global implications. Indians developed an extraordinary number of maize varieties for different growing conditions, which meant that the crop could and did spread throughout the planet. Central and Southern Europeans became particularly dependent on it; maize was the staple of Serbia, Romania, and Moldavia by the nineteenth century. Indian crops dramatically reduced hunger, Crosby says, which led to an Old World population boom.
Along with peanuts and manioc, maize came to Africa and transformed agriculture there, too. “The probability is that the population of Africa was greatly increased because of maize and other American Indian crops,” Crosby says. “Those extra people helped make the slave trade possible.” Maize conquered Africa at the time when introduced diseases were leveling Indian societies. The Spanish, the Portuguese, and the British were alarmed by the death rate among Indians, because they wanted to exploit them as workers. Faced with a labor shortage, the Europeans turned their eyes to Africa. The continent’s quarrelsome societies helped slave traders to siphon off millions of people. The maize-fed population boom, Crosby believes, let the awful trade continue without pumping the well dry.
Back home in the Americas, Indian agriculture long sustained some of the world’s largest cities. The Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán dazzled Hernán Cortés in 1519; it was bigger than Paris, Europe’s greatest metropolis. The Spaniards gawped like hayseeds at the wide streets, ornately carved buildings, and markets bright with goods from hundreds of miles away. They had never before seen a city with botanical gardens, for the excellent reason that none existed in Europe. The same novelty attended the force of a thousand men that kept the crowded streets immaculate. (Streets that weren’t ankle-deep in sewage! The conquistadors had never heard of such a thing.) Central America was not the only locus of prosperity. Thousands of miles north, John Smith, of Pocahontas fame, visited Massachusetts in 1614, before it was emptied by disease, and declared that the land was “so planted with Gardens and Corne fields, and so well inhabited with a goodly, strong and well proportioned people … [that] I would rather live here than any where.”
and another excerpt:
In as yet unpublished research the archaeologists Eduardo Neves, of the University of São Paulo; Michael Heckenberger, of the University of Florida; and their colleagues examined terra preta in the upper Xingu, a huge southern tributary of the Amazon. Not all Xingu cultures left behind this living earth, they discovered. But the ones that did generated it rapidly—suggesting to Woods that terra preta was created deliberately. In a process reminiscent of dropping microorganism-rich starter into plain dough to create sourdough bread, Amazonian peoples, he believes, inoculated bad soil with a transforming bacterial charge. Not every group of Indians there did this, but quite a few did, and over an extended period of time.
When Woods told me this, I was so amazed that I almost dropped the phone. I ceased to be articulate for a moment and said things like “wow” and “gosh.” Woods chuckled at my reaction, probably because he understood what was passing through my mind. Faced with an ecological problem, I was thinking, the Indians fixed it. They were in the process of terraforming the Amazon when Columbus showed up and ruined everything.
This barely even touches on some of the differences in agriculture and forestry practices. Where I’m from, if you don’t have people managing the undergrowth with controlled burns, etc., you basically get temperate jungle. Combine that with widespread settler deforestation in the past for timber so it’s mostly secondary growth forest, and you’ve got a difficult to use mess, lower biodiversity because some things just get choked out and other things need periodic burning to germinate, and a lot of forest fires whenever it gets dry wherever people have not been able to continue traditional forest management.
I was also surprised at the big deal made out of the tierra prieta “discovery”, though I probably should not have been. There are still a lot of common assumptions going that indigenous people must have been just plain stupid because they were not doing things in exactly the same ways as invading Europeans—and were obviously so inferior in general. But, people also used similar practices elsewhere to enrich soil. Where I’m from, some people still haul rich cove humus (along with ashes) to improve garden soil. I have helped my Nana with that.
In that case, you get particularly rich soil from sometimes meters-deep layers of leaf mold collecting over the years/centuries, no doubt with its own distinctive microorganism communities. It doesn’t just add more organic material to areas of clay soil, but AFAICT acts very similarly to the tierra prieta. And I am sure that’s not the only area in North America where people figured out some similar ways of enriching soil. (Besides using river bottoms full of rich silt and built-in irrigation for growing staple crops, for incredible yields. And so forth.)
Because they were not stupid.
And the Hohokam were working with the rivers and building a multitude of canals - some up to 20 miles long, 20-25 meters (about 60 feet) wide, and 6+ meters (18 feet) deep. These brought river water to their fields.When white settlers got to what is now Phoenix, they mostly just cleaned out the old Hohokam canals and used those. That is why the city is called Phoenix, because it is a new form based on an older one.
And when they realized that canal use and changing river salinity were salinizing some of their best cropland - the people in those areas switched over to spate/flood irrigation and to agriculture based on agaves - which they figured out how to cultivate on rocky mountain slopes using only rainwater. They built low lines of rocks to help catch rain and help the agaves grow. We can still see miles of those lines (including some volunteer agaves!) up on the hills today.
There was also a whole lot of really thoughtful Spate/Flood agriculture. Which is using the natural floods in rivers and washes for agriculture. People would set up their fields in the flood plain ahead of time and put in fences, dams, etc. Not just to hold water, but also to trap the fertile soil in the water. Including trapping the right proportions of silt,clay, etc. They would also leave legume trees (mesquites etc.) in the middle of their fields because they have the ability to pull nitrogen out of the air and put it into the soil - fertilizing it. And they made (and continue to make) living fences out of soil-enriching bushes and trees.
Besides also creating varieties of beans and other crops that could produce fruit on very little water.
(And as soon as the Spaniards got here they were making all sorts of new varieties of melons, peaches, and pomegranates, too.)
And that’s not mentioning the check dams up in the mountains in Sonora. Helping hold soil and water in place for all the wild plants.
Nope, not stupid.