Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Will we be discussing the Preface/Introduction as well? I found that extremely interesting and written by the author himself.

What did you think about how the story even originated - fascinating?

This should be very exciting.

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.

I saw an immediate association to what Winston Churchill said: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it".

And write it he did. Do you think that our version of the Incas' events were dictated by the fact that the Spanish wrote their own history of the events in their own country with their own language so that is the version that was known and History was kind to them because they wrote it?

Winston Churchill

Note: I did an author citation for these discussion threads only because I am fairly certain that Winston will not be a personage discussed in this book so he needs to be cited.

I also found the preface to be very provocative.

I am really looking forward to this read. I've been to Brazil, so I am excited to learn about the west side of South America.

To respond to the question that Bentley posed, I do think that our understanding of the Incas comes from what the Spanish wrote and I am assuming we need to take some of it with a grain of salt. In the preface, McQuarrie mentions that the Spaniard's reports (relaciones) were written to impress the king. (pg 2) I expect that there was some embellishment to gain favor with the king and not understanding the Inca culture likely caused them to get some facts wrong. I found it sad that the Incas oral history and quipus died out after a short time. That to me is what makes archaeology so fascinating. It is uncovering lost history and bringing it back to life. I look forward to seeing what Bingham has uncovered.

@ Bentley. Good applicable Churchill quote. Up until this book and discussion I am not sure that I had heard that much about the Incas. More about the Aztecs. I think Bentley makes a good point. We believe what we believe about the Incas and the Spanish conquest because that is the history that we have. This book will bring balance. I too am excited about getting into the discussion.

@ Teri good point re: the reporting. The author also mentions (p.3) that the notaries downplayed the actions of others. So, I read that to mean if I can gain and advantage in the telling (because I can write and you can't) then I am putting the proverbially knife in your back so I can gain favor with the king.

Just requested it from my local library. Hope to start this week! A little out of my normal scope, but I have researched this time and area before- just back in junior high, not post-university!

I think there is a less biased source material through Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (ca. 1535 - after 1616), also known as Guamán Poma or Huamán Poma, was a Quechua noble man known for his chronicle in which he denounced the ill treatment of the native peoples of the Andes by the Spanish after conquest. Today, Guaman Poma is noted for his illustrated chronicle, Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno.

A very readable and accessible book. This period of history has fascinated me ever since I started following legends of El Dorado.

To address the issue of the one-sided viewpoints of most historical sources, we must understand that most of the history as we know it now were written from the viewpoint of the European conquerors. Modern historians have to do a lot of detective work to read between the lines. Look at how the history of India has been reinterpreted in recent years. History is a developing science (art?).

I am not sure Kathy how close MacQuarrie can come; but I think the remains that have been found pretty much tell the story of what happened to them. Technology that the Incas did not have certainly helped the Spaniards. I think that in and of itself show tactics that reinforce the account favoring the side of history MacQuarrie found himself on. Oral history according to the author thus far was not as strong as it might have been but maybe finding the Inca location after all of those years also helped move things along so that MacQuarrie would have the ability when he came along to discern the truth. With the Spaniards the ends justified the means.

By the way - I am finding this book fascinating so far and delighted that we are tackling a read based in South America.

I think the Spaniards saw this expedition as a business opportunity - before they even got into the boat they were already figuring out their share percentage in terms of the spoils. Almost like a bunch of pirates.

Kathy wrote: ""Bingham had been told the remarkable story of the Inca's little known rebel kingdom a year earlier, ..." (page 9)

This really floors me, that basically the Inca's story was forgotten by most of t..."

And these men came to be known as explorers who we studied and learned about in school and the poor Incas not so much. That is what floored me.

Michael wrote: "@ Teri good point re: the reporting. The author also mentions (p.3) that the notaries downplayed the actions of others. So, I read that to mean if I can gain and advantage in the telling (because I can write and you can't) then I am putting the proverbially knife in your back so I can gain favor with the king.

Interesting post. We sift through layers of hearsay, competing perspectives, subjectivity... A history documented by literary notaries, as accounted to them by illiterate conquistadores...Everyone has a motive. "

Kathy wrote: "(Page 3) "... Spanish chroniclers often misunderstood or misinterpreted much of the native culture they encountered, while they simultaneously ignored and/or downplayed the actions of African and Central American slaves the Spaniards had brought along with them, as well as the influence of their native mistresses."

So mostly we have the Spanish view and three indigenous views, but we are completely left without views of the women and slaves. I imagine there is so much more to the stories than we can even begin to imagine.

MacQuarrie says that an author must choose from the varying accounts to write the history. How close to the truth do you think MacQuarrie can come with so few views from others than the conquistadores? "

I found I asked myself the same question. This is an obstacle in general, when it comes to history, is it not?

Something that also stood out to me was that there was more than one reference to how the Spaniards were struck by the Indian women's beauty. It appeared to me that they viewed the women as commodities. Were they hungry for the female companionship after their travels in the company of men? And what about the women they left behind? Their mothers, daughters, and wives in their homeland? I also wonder what was it like for them in Spain with their men gone?

Bentley wrote: "with the Spaniards the ends justified the means." Kathy wrote: "How little the victors valued the people that they had conquered that the Inca history had all but disappeared."

It seems to me that it became necessary across the globe as Europeans began to colonize newly discovered lands for them to be able to dehumanize the indigenous peoples. The slave trade required this (and the modern slave trade still relies on this). It happened in Africa, North American, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, Asia, South Asia, etc.

It may be unfair for me to say but it seems to me that the conquest of the Aztecs and, as we are reading, the Incas required a particularly harsh dehumanization of these people. If they are not considered human it then becomes logical that there is not culture or history to preserve because they are not worth the effort.

I am struggling to understand the spiritual, mental, emotional and cultural gymnastics that a person would have to through to justify this. It is the same struggle I have had since reading about genocides in Darfur, Rwanda, and Sudan.

After the Renaissance, when Europe started the Age of Exploration, Capitalism was just rearing its ugly head. Under Feudalism, people were treated as vassals and slaves: under Capitalism, they were (are!) treated as commodities. Capitalism also had one more advantage; anybody could become an enterpreuner, regardless of birth.

When I read this book, I find myself comparing what the Spanish did in the Americas to what the East India Company did in India. The intention was same. However, since the conquest happened later in time and India already had a Feudal system in place, and also because the English were a little more conscious about their public image, there was no cultural destruction - only looting.

When I read books like this or books I have read in the past about the puritans coming to America and their encounters with the natives there, it always baffles me how the Europeans just assumed they had the right to walk right on to the soil (or into the Pacific in the case of this book pg. 22) and just claim it with a flag as the natives stand by and watch.

Also these types of books always raise the question for me of why were the Europeans so advanced where as these natives were still living the way they did in Bible times? I loved Columbus' description of the natives on page 20.

@Nathan "This was a divine right of the Christian god to take this land and people. Those inhabitants of what was to become Peru were not citizens but interlopers on the land given to Spain by god himself." @ Kathy "Nathan, I do agree that much harm has been done in the name of the Christian God. Crazy how different people justify things."

I think this is going to be one of our discussion points in future segments of the book as well. In some ways I welcome it abd in other ways I dread it. My undergrad is in Theology, grad work in leadership/management...I am a church leader. I welcome it because I know that for a few centuries what I am going to call the "historical church" was on a tangent that had little to do with God and it is good to recognize where things strayed and in some ways i.e. Australia's apology to the Aborigines try to make amends. What I see in the Spanish conquest is not a desire to serve the Christian God. Rather I see them using the "involvement" of the political head of the church to assuage any guilt over how indigenous peoples were to be treated. This actually requires the dehumanization I spoke of earlier. If they are not human than God cannot be mad at me for misusing/mistreating His children. Unfortunately, most people groups have much in their history that is unpleasant and even shameful. (I apologize if this post is too wordy :-) )

I thank Michael and Kathy for their comments on this subjects. I agree it is a tough topic to discuss when you realize the whole basis of Christian teaching has been totally ignored. The conquerors in their hubris used the name of Christianity as basis to subjugate an entire nation for their very self interest and greed.

I find the style of the book matches the the author's other skills. As a filmmaker, Kim MacQuarrie opens the book like a movie. If there were no book Introduction, the movie viewer would be watching a tall thin professor sloshing through a steamy hot South American jungle and suddenly discovering some ancient ruins. Then suddenly there would a flashback to to an earlier time that would explain the relationship of the ruins discovery and its relationship to the story line. In the filmmaking world there is probably some specific terminology that describes this writing or directing. It certainly keeps the viewer or the reader's interest and allows the reader to follow the story line.

I like the style so far. It gives the reader a modern day introduction to the Incas that many of us have - mysterious race of ancient people who lived many years ago and left their unexplained ruins for us to ponder. The author then proceeds to give the reader enough historical background to prepare the reader for the real story that follows. The reader is then able to understand the mentality of the players with as much limited info available to the author. This has been a fascinating read.

I think that one of the reasons that European/Mediterranean culture advanced more rapidly was the constant contact among cultures starting in the med. basin and expanding north as the Romans spread northward. The Mesoamerican cultures do not seem to have had these constant clashes of people who viewed themselves as unique. I also think the competition created by these intersections for resources and markets spurred innovations late in coming where the incentive/need was less critical. I do not know what, if any, contact the Aztecs and the Incas had.

I found it striking, as a middle aged man, that Pizarro was in his early 50's when he began the conquest. Given that lifespans were so much less back then and the physically grueling nature of exploration and warfare I am really astonished. He had an easy life yet chose to take on more. Regardless of what one thinks about the morality of the conquest I think this lends insight into his personal drive. Greed? Maybe. But coming from where he started and having n comfortable life in Panama I think that simple greed isn't really part of the equation.

I am very glad that I have the opportunity to read this book with you.

It was interesting to discover that Pizarro and so many of the other conquistadors came from such impoverished backgrounds. It makes sense that these were the people willing to take such extreme risks. The author tells us that Pizarro and his partner Amalgro were both illegitimate and illiterate. They were more or less freewheeling adventurers operating under the lose auspices of the Spanish government. This is not how I envisaged the conquistadors!

I agree that the Pizarro and friends did horrible things to the native peoples. Does it make any difference that they honestly believed that they were doing "God's" work? I don't think they had to convince themselves. At this time in Europe many horrible things, including burning people at the stake, were done in the name of religion.

Also, were the Inca rulers any less bloodthirsty than the Spanish? I guess we will have to read further to find out.

@ Ann - Ann wrote: "It was interesting to discover that Pizarro and so many of the other conquistadors came from such impoverished backgrounds."

I also found it fascinating that many of the conquistadors, particularly the leaders, came from the same region of Spain - Extremadura. Did others of you find this interesting?

@Kathy- Kathy wrote: "Gold has a powerful allure, or was it that really they did not have much to go back to?"

There are enough historical references for us to study and understand the gold fever/gold rush mentality. Even the old blue light special at Kmart can cause a minor stampede :-)

I think they literally did not have anything to go back to. They paid their own way to be a part of the conquest. How many of them came of those ships in the new world absolutely penniless? Perhaps even in debt to someone in the Old World.

@Ann - Ann wrote: "Does it make any difference that they honestly believed that they were doing "God's" work? I don't think they had to convince themselves. At this time in Europe many horrible things, including burning people at the stake, were done in the name of religion."

This is a good point. Christianity is the religion referenced here because Spain was the country they came from. However, institutional religion of almost all brands (I think one could say) have things for which they are not really proud.

"Also, were the Inca rulers any less bloodthirsty than the Spanish? I guess we will have to read further to find out." Written by Ann.

I think you have a really good point here. I have been thinking this as well.

Michael wrote: "@ Ann - Ann wrote: "It was interesting to discover that Pizarro and so many of the other conquistadors came from such impoverished backgrounds."

I also found it fascinating that many of the conqui..."

Michael I found that very interesting. I asked myself what was there about this area that produced so many?

I agree with Kathy - the Europeans were really arrogant and used God as a permission to do what they wanted. I didn't realize that all of these explorers came from roughly the same place in Spain. I know how it ended for Cortez, wonder if something similar is in store for Pizarro? I'm glad I joined the club on this one. I'm really enjoying everything I'm learning from this book!

We are glad to have you here Robyn and I am enjoying very much everybody's spirited discussion of this book.

Believe me it is hard tapping on the iPhone app (between uncoordinated fingers and bad eyesight) - you can be doomed (lol)

No worries. I have to constantly watch out for the dreaded iPhone autocorrect.

Oh yes Robyn - that too (lol)

Michael and Kathy,
I have read that the Extremadura area of Spain is one of the poorest parts of the country. I suppose the success of early conquistadors from that area also inspired their compatriots.

Mark,
You made good points about Pizzaro's advanced (for the times) age and the fact that he was motivated by more than just greed. He must have had a thirst for glory, as well as remarkable self-confidence in the face of tremendous risks.

Maybe his low status as an illegitimate son spurred him on to prove himself. It's interesting that he surrounded himself with his younger half-brothers in his expeditions to conquer the Incas.

They were a lot younger than he was too. Interesting. I suppose he trusted them because they were family.

Not sure how reliable this is, but I did find some additional information about the brothers at this web site:

Francisco's mother was a maid in the Pizarro household and he tended the family livestock when he was young. His father was a soldier.

Of the 4 brothers who helped in the conquest of Peru, only Hernando was legitimate. The other 3 were illegitimate, like Francisco. 3 out of 4 were half brothers on Francisco's father's side. One was a half-brother on his mother's side.

Kind of a complicated family situation, eh?

Ann and Cathy: It is very likely that this conquest was the only hope for this family of brothers to see anything but poverty and the street.

I read chapters 1 and 2 over the last few days while traveling to and from Philadelphia. I'm really enjoying it so far and I very excited to keep reading. I have always been fascinated by ancient Latin American cultures, especially the Incas. My husband and I plan to see Machu Pichu in the next few years. A few things that I've taken from the book so far...forgive me, I'm reading it on my kindle so I don't have page numbers. In the preface, about 2% into the book, the author states that "the Incas kept track of their histories via specialized oral histories, genealogies, and possibly quipus". This greatly contributes to the mystery of the Inca culture and why so much about them is a mystery and may never be understood. If only we could travel back in time to find ourselves in one of those oral stories :)The only chronicles and written information about the Incas are given by non-native men who had not witnessed any of the events in this book; this is important to keep in mind.
The fact that Hiram Bingham had not even thought to pack a lunch for his trek (loc 234) showed that he did not believe he would find anything of significance. Can you imagine his astonishment when he discovered the ruins? He does a great deal describing what he saw, but not as much how he felt. I wonder at what point he realized he might actually find something incredible? Was it when Melchor Arteaga told him so or did he really believe it then?

In chapter 2 Pizarro's background was surprising and interesting to me. Some of the conquistadors were wealthy, however he was not nor could he read. Given the time, it is easy to see why Pizarro chose to join the military (almost certain death) to move up in society (loc 446). It was surprising and new to me that the vast majority of Spaniards traveled to the New World as private citizens hoping to acquire wealth and higher status than they had grown up with (loc 506). Although unfortunate and terribly sad, it helps to understand the brutality some of the Spaniards demonstrated towards the indigenous people. It's almost as if they were willing to do whatever it took to return home to a perceived better life, even if it meant believing that it was God's work, according the to the king. I have to ask myself how many of them truly believed this or made them do so to justify violent acts, especially since they were probably easily manipulated. I am excited to read on and discover answers.

Michael wrote: "@Nathan "This was a divine right of the Christian god to take this land and people. Those inhabitants of what was to become Peru were not citizens but interlopers on the land given to Spain by god ..."

Michael, I couldn't agree with you more. I was just about to say that I feel the government was far more responsible for the violent acts than God or religion. Those in leadership and of wealth spoke of God to influence citizens to follow them and join them in the fight. Like I said in my post, it is easier to see how the conquistadors were so easily influenced. They were poor and many illiterate which means they were probably uneducated in other ways and most likely easily pursued to begin with. Not to say that they didn't make their own choices or that they were poor ones, but they were controlled by wealthier more powerful leaders. One of God's greatest gifts is to allow us to make our own choices even if they're terrible.

Emily,

The "Colonial Policeman" is almost always from the lowest strata of European society. He travels to the New World in the hope of gaining that status among the "natives" - who, being outside the "civilised" European society, can be dealt with at their pleasure. To justify their actions, they drag God into it. The Spanish were probably more brutal than the rest - though I could give you hair-raising stories about the Portugese in India!

I finally got the book from the library, and am excited to start discussing the book.

I felt a little bad for Poma de Ayala. He spent most of his life trying to record accounts of what happened only to have his manuscript be forgotten for hundreds of years (p4). I'm glad that some of pictures in this book are from his manuscript.

I am excited to read this book to discover what is known about the Incas, and how much of their story will remain a mystery.

@Nathan. I think you are right. As I mentioned a few posts ago I think we have to couple the divine right idea with the dehumanization factor then anything goes. This, in my opinion, is the combination that allows for any group of people to be abusive toward any other group of people.

Nathan wrote: "I am looking forward to reading more about Hiram Bingham III. I had honestly never heard the name before and after reading up some this is truly one of the great American lives."

I agree. I'd read about his grandfather, the first missionary to settle Hawaii, in Unfamiliar Fishes by Sarah Vowell. It was a fairly unflattering portrait, which is corroborated by this book, which said that the younger Hiram Bingham couldn't wait to get away from his missionary family. And if he turns out to have an anti-imperialist attitude, that was probably the influence of his early life in Hawaii, too.

Citation: by Sarah Vowell

For those who are familiar with Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell, doesn't Extremadura sound like the Roseta for explorers?

Citation: by Malcolm Gladwell

The brutality of the conquistadors is certainly shocking. I find it hard to believe that there was much religious motivation involved, though that may have served as a convenient rationalization. It sounds like a cruel, selfish world all around. That being said, I found the footnote on page 21 about Bartolomé de Las Casas, who championed laws to protect the Natives of the New World, very interesting. Apparently not everyone was comfortable with the kill them all and grab what you can approach to exploration. It's sobering to think of whose names we tend to remember today.

Some really interesting stuff in the second chapter revolving around Pizzaro. As someone mentioned in a previous post, these times in history were pretty much glanced over in high-school. I think I was most surprised to learn that the two men who conquered the Aztecs & Mayans (Pizzaro & Cortes) were second cousins who grew up within 40 miles of one another.