Left-Wing and the 'Other' History: The Native-Land Project and Counter-Mapping

The Native Land Project began in 2015 as a Canadian not-for-profit organisation. In December 2018 the project began in earnest, and now has began a project of 'counter-mapping' to represent indigenous history. It is an unfortunate part of history that indigenous peoples across the world have had their lives and lands taken away from them by colonial forces. Native Land aims to represent indigenous land claims, treaties, and languages on an interactive map, and it is continuously expanding. As it was originally associated with the Indigenous Board of Directors in Canada the project is Canada-centric, but it has expanded to include the rest of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. So far the project has only focused on the Americas and Oceania, and certain areas are still not represented - Brazil and Nicaragua for example - but the project is still expanding.

What is Counter-Mapping?

A Gall-Peters Map

Maps are not value-free objects - they are all made for specific reasons. As argued by J.B. Harley, 'maps are a cultural text' where maps are intrinsically linked to power. Benedict Anderson linked maps to the formation of national identity; by demarcating where the borders lay it was used by national rulers to build a national community. By delineating who belongs within the border helped create the nation. Counter-mapping aims to put the this on its head, and look at maps through alternate lenses. These 'counter-maps' can vary immensely based on purpose and usage. A good example is the use of a Gall-Peters map instead of a Mercator map. If you look at a map in North America or Europe it will likely use the Mercator scale - it was designed in the sixteenth century to allow sailors navigate their way to the Americas from Europe. This meant that certain areas, especially Europe and Greenland, were made much larger, and other areas, like Africa and India, were shrunk. Due to the legacy of colonialism, the Mercator scale reinforces European importance. In contrast, the Gall-Peters map changes the scale in a different way to more accurately represent the size, and even place, where continents lie. Although not perfect, there is distortion in any global map, it makes the map appear more as does in reality.

Decolonial Atlas' map of Australia from an indigenous point of view

That is just one example of a counter-map. Denis Wood has shown how varied counter-maps can be. The 1971 Detroit Geographic Expedition first mapped where children were killed in hit-and-run accidents, where the white population is, and then transposed both maps over one another. It showed how white motorists travelling between the white suburbs and white business sector hit African-American children - it showed the an indirect racial series of murders. The Decolonial Atlas shows a different version of counter-mapping - this website shows a variety of maps ranging from the US written in indigenous names to bio-regions of Africa. Native Land is a good example of counter-mapping.

The Native Land Project

A board of indigenous activists, historians, and cartographers run the Native Land Project with the aim to bring awareness of indigenous land claims. They themselves acknowledge that it is far from perfect - they argue that it is incomplete and the legacies of colonialism mean that land claims cannot be fully traced. However, it is doing an important job in recognising indigenous history. As contributor Chelsea Vowel, a Metis woman, stated:

If we think of territorial acknowledgments as sites of potential disruption, they can be transformative acts that to some extent undo Indigenous erasure. I believe this is true as long as these acknowledgments discomfit both those speaking and hearing the words. The fact of Indigenous presence should force non-Indigenous peoples to confront their own place on these lands.

They aim to make settlers recognise that there were people who lived on the lands before them - genocide and exploitation forced indigenous peoples from these lands. In contrast to the Canadian government, the Native Land Project expands whose claims to look at - they acknowledge Inuit and Metis claims as well as the First Nations. The map contains no borders to reflect that contemporary borders do not reflect where territories and languages were. For example, the Blackfoot territory was split in half by the creation of the US-Cananda border where Montana and Saskatchewan now are. The languages, territories, and treaties on the map show where peoples and land claims are, and the map supply links to websites made by indigenous activists to inform readers. Looking at the map you get a strong sense of just how diverse and overlapping indigenous peoples are in just small areas. Below is a language map of California perfectly showing this:

It can be usefully compared to other counter-mapping projects. For example, below is the Native Land Project's territory map of Australia showing a similar map as the one shown above.

The map is still in development - as mentioned earlier there are still many areas of the world which need filling in. Brazil, Nicaragua, and Brazil have no treaties, territories, and languages, and the rest of the world needs to be filled in. The Saami of Scandinavia; Tatars of Central Asia and Ukraine; the various peoples of Papua New Guinea, China, and Vietnam; the Khoisan of South Africa; and Ainu and Okinawans of Japan are just some people not included. However, the creators emphasise that it is not complete and not perfect - especially in Australia a wide range of territories overlap so a readable map would be difficult to do. Hopefully, the Native Land Project will continue to be funded, it relies on donations, and can continue to expand to reflect various indigenous peoples across the world.

The sources use are as follows:

-'Native-Land Project,' https://native-land.ca/

-'The Decolonial Atlas,' https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/

-Denis Wood, Rethinking the Power of Maps, (New York: Guilford Press, 2010)

-Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, (London: Verso, 1991)

-J.B. Harley, The New Nature of Maps, (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2001)

For other Left-Wing and the 'Other' History posts please see our list here. For other blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

World History: The American Revolution

When completing his history of the world in The Age of Extremes Eric Hobsbawm placed the Age of Revolution as starting in 1776 with that of the American Revolution, (although he originally placed it in 1789 due to his series starting as a history of Europe). The American Revolution was one of the key events in modern history with it leading to the creation of the USA and helped spawn ideas of liberty. The Revolution was a complex event leaving long-lasting and contradictory legacies which continues to influence the world today. In this post we'll look at the ideological origins of Revolution, the events which set the stage for Revolution, the War of Independence, its impact, results, and legacies. 

Origins

In 1764 the editor of the New-Hampshire Gazette wrote 'By this means the spirited Englishman, the mountainous Welshman, the brave Scotsman,and Irishman, and the loyal American, may be firmly united and mutually resolved to guard the glorious throne of Britannia.' How then, around a decade later, did the colonists of the Thirteen Colonies come to revolt against Britain? As with many events in history we have a series of reasons behind the origins of the Revolution. Last World History post we looked at the Seven Years' War which contributed to the origins of Revolution. The War pushed France out of North America opening former French lands to British settlement and into conflict with Native Americans. A mixture of encroachment into their land and 'pan-Indianism' from a Delaware religious prophet named Neolin, (these two points will become a recurring factor in American-Native American relations in the years to come), caused a war, called Pontiac's War, on May 7 1763 when British troops were attacked by Chippewa warriors at Lake St. Clair, near Detroit. The war would last until 1766 when more land was taken from Native Americans but in 1763 the king, George III, issued a proclamation creating new colonies and forbidding white settlement east of the Appalachian Mountains. The reason for this was because Britain was unwilling to be drawn into a series of border wars, but the American colonists and land speculators saw this as a personal attack. They wanted to settle, or buy, the land although in practice the 'Proclamation Line' was ignored. By 1771 over 10,000 colonists had settled in the Ohio Valley causing massacres of Native Americans, such as in Pennsylvania. In the 1730s and 1740s a Protestant religious revival called the Great Awakening swept over the colonies where even those sceptical of religion, like Benjamin Franklin, became enraptured by religious preachers. Not only did this lay the foundation of Revolution as it encouraged greater social participation and there were calls for the people to choose their ministers, but one particular act passed by Britain fed into this. When Britain took French colonies in Canada this brought into the empire more Catholics. To secure their allegiance in 1774 the Quebec Act expanded the colony of Quebec and emancipated Catholics. The revitalised Protestants saw this as a betrayal of their faith and London strengthening Catholics, and settlers were aggravated as the expanded Quebec ate into land which they could settle. 

A critique of the Stamp Act

The Seven Years' War was very expensive costing Britain around £161 million. Taxes were raised across the empire and especially in the American colonies as it was seen that as Britain had fought the war for them they should pay for it. As a result, a series of taxes were passed which aggravated colonists - we'll get to them soon so we'll discuss the ideology behind opposition to taxes now. A common misconception, which seems to largely be held by aspects of the political Right, was that the protests were over taxation; it is often overlooked that the actual phrase was 'No Taxation without Representation'. A prevailing thought among British politicians at the time was 'virtual representation' as opposed to 'direct representation'. With virtual representation it was believed that those who sat in parliament represented the entire empire; the merchants who sat in parliament therefore represented all merchants across the empire. This idea was highly contested in both Britain and elsewhere in the colonies; it is no lie to say how corrupt this could be, until 1832 Old Sarum with a population of 7 had equal representation in parliament as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This also linked to ideas of liberty. Many of the leaders of the American Revolution were influenced by the British Enlightenment. When we say Enlightenment we should really say 'Enlightenments' as each region of Europe had their own specific Enlightenment. The British Enlightenment, (we can also say Scottish due to how many Scottish thinkers there were), focused on ideas of individual liberty, property rights and secularism. Of these included the 'Father of Capitalism' Adam Smith and humanists like David Hume. Enlightenment humanism, in contrast to Renaissance humanism, placed emphasis on secularism, the separation of religion and state, and emphasis on logic over superstition. The famous figures of the Revolution including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deeply inspired by this branch of the Enlightenment. 

Thomas Paine

I want to focus on one particular part of the ideological origins of the American Revolution which inspired people across the US, Britain, and France. This was a short pamphlet written in simple English called Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Written in 1776 John Adams said 'Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.'  Originally from Norfolk in Britain Paine emigrated to Philadelphia in 1774 where he soon became embroiled in the radical politics of the city's artisans. Paine was deeply inspired by liberalism and individualism writing that 'For were the impulses of conscious clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means of protection of the rest.' For a long time the British constitution was seen as being the best granting liberty to people in a world gripped by despotism. Paine disagreed. He viewed the only free and republican aspect of Britain was the parliament which he saw as being corrupted by the monarchy. 'For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever.' Paine argued that through the free market and an independent republic based on a broad franchise, annual assemblies, and a rotating presidency could people find liberty. Common Sense was immensely popular selling over 100,000 in 1776 alone and more people than that knew what was written inside; being written in vernacular English it could be read out in public for those unable to read it themselves. Paine would release future editions responding to critiques and his own views would later become more radical; he became a vocal deist and thanks to his critiques of Christianity only six individuals came to his funeral. Nevertheless, Paine offered the ideological backbone for what Gordon Wood would describe as 'The radicalism of the American Revolution'.

Lead up to Revolution

The Sons of Liberty tarring and feathering someone ignoring the boycott

In 1763 Britain had a deficit of £122 million which the new prime minister, George Grenville, opted to solve by taxing the colonies. If the Seven Years' War had been fought on behalf of the colonies why shouldn't they pay their dues? As this was happening we see the grievances over the Proclamation Line as well. Before 1764 the colonies had been lightly taxed: someone in Massachusetts on average paid a shilling in tax a year compared to a counterpart in Britain who paid twelve. In 1764 Grenville passed the first taxes but saw this as a way to formally establish authority over the lightly ruled colonies; a Royal Governor and local assembly governed each colony largely independent from Westminster. In March 1765 the Stamp Act was passed beginning the Stamp Act Crisis. This was a tax on anything with a stamp and this act also had anything published in the colonies to legally have a stamp on it. This covered everything from newspapers and legal documents to playing cards. Compared to the Sugar Tax from the year prior which regulated trade between the colonies and the rest of the empire it was seen as being illegal as it directly taxed the colonists. Although a light tax, the highest was £10 for attorney licenses, there was a fear acceptance of the Stamp Act would lead to heavy taxes and then entirely shifting the tax burden from Britain to the colonies. We also have the issue of 'No Taxation without Representation'. It was imposed by a body which the colonists had no say in despite Grenville saying they did through virtual representation. At the same time the Quartering Act was passed forcing colonists to house soldiers in their houses if needed which was seen as another tax. In 1765 the Sons of Liberty were formed among New York's labourers, sailors, and craftsmen, and soon similar groups emerged in Boston. In November 1765 a crowd made of sailors, youths, African-Americans, and labourers hurled stones at Fort George in Manhattan, and then destroyed the home of Major Thomas James, a British officer who threatened to force the stamps down the New Yorkers' throats. Virginia condemned the Act and in October 1765 27 delegates from nine colonies formed the Stamp Act Congress in New York to combat the Act. John Adams was seen as being the 'soul of the Congress'. They endorsed Virginia's position, agreed to act together, and vowed the boycott British goods. This was a breakthrough as the colonies started acting together instead of individually and none of the West Indian colonies turned up. As the Thirteen Colonies made up a third of British exports, enforcing the Stamp Act became difficult thanks to American protests, and the Stamp Act was unpopular in Britain as well in 1766 the new government started debating whether to repeal it. Benjamin Franklin even journeyed to London to criticise the Stamp Act. Parliament repealed the Stamp Act but as they did they passed the Declaratory Act; this act confirmed that what London said went. Despite the warning colonists celebrated and the road to Revolution was on its way. Backing down over the Stamp Act showed that British power could be challenged. 

Paul Revere's Boston Massacre engraving

In 1767 the new prime minister, Charles Townshend, created a series of custom duties, called the Townshend Acts, on goods including glass, tea, and paper in order to pay American governors and judges. This affected merchants the hardest and as many merchants were concentrated in Massachusetts that colony became the focal point for resistance to the Townshend Acts. Unlike the earlier Stamp Act boycott the boycotts against the Townshend Acts were less successful due to them being levied on everyday items. One of the key texts illustrating colonial views were the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania by John Dickinson who published them in a Philadelphia newspaper between 1767 and 1768. Inspired by Enlightenment thought from figures like David Hume it called for Americans to hold the same rights as the British while reconciling with the mother country. Meanwhile, a grassroots and elite opposition to the Townshend Acts emerged where homemade goods were bought instead of British goods. The Sons of Liberty would tar-and-feather those who bought British goods and women got involved. The Daughters of Liberty organised social ostracising of those who continued to buy British goods and wove their own clothes to sell. The landowners and planters of the South, like George Washington, readily took up non-importation in order to pay off debts to British merchants (as well as encourage the sale of their own crops), and urban merchants were grateful for a drop in competition with British merchants. The heavy-handedness of the British in order to establish their authority aggravated the colonists. The navy seized a sloop called Liberty owned by Boston merchant John Hancock believing it was being used for smuggling. Hancock was well respected and riots broke out in 1768 causing soldiers to be stationed in Boston to enforce the law. Quickly Anglo-American relations soured. On March 5 1770 a protesting crowd, including a sailor of mixed Native American-black-white background called Crispus Attucks, started throwing snowballs at British troops. One was hit causing his weapon to discharge and, in turn, causing the other soldiers to fire into the crowd. Three were killed including Attucks who was later remembered as 'the first martyr of the American Revolution'. The commanding officer and eight soldiers were tried and defended strangely by John Adams who saw most of them acquitted. A local member of the Sons of Liberty, Paul Revere, stirred up opposition to the British by issuing a famous engraving print depicting the 'Boston Massacre' despite it being inaccurate. However, by 1770 the non-importation movement was declining as more and more of the elite couldn't do without British goods so a deal was drawn up: the boycott would end in return for removing troops from Boston and repealing all the taxes bar the one on tea. 

The Boston Tea Party

Throughout this time popular but radical journalist John Wilkes caused controversy in Britain and he gained popularity in America; the calls of 'Wilkes and Liberty' was a rallying cry across the Atlantic and for generations after people would name their children after him (including John Wilkes Booth). Meanwhile, the East India Company saw a dip in its stock so the government encouraged selling tea in America to reinvigorate it, and tea soon became widely drunk across all classes in Britain and America. Prime minister Lord North hoped to further reinvigorate sales by offering tax exemptions and rebates enabling it to dump cheap tea into America to undercut Dutch sales which ended up undercutting sales of established merchants and smugglers. Taxing the tea would then defray the costs of the colonial government threatening the assemblies' control over finance. Thus began the most famous protest of this period. On December 16 1773 a group of colonialists disguised as Native Americans boarded tea ships in Boston Harbor a threw 300 chests of tea costing £10,000 (£4 million in today's money). So popular was this that commemorative teapots were made! North was furious. The Coercive Acts, called the Intolerable Acts in the colonies, decided to punish Massachusetts including closing Boston Harbor; restricted town meetings; issued in another Quartering Act; replaced the local government with a military one under Thomas Gage; and Gage imposed martial law. Around this time the earlier mentioned Quebec Act was also passed. In Philadelphia on September 1774 the First Continental Congress saw twelve of the thirteen colonies (Georgia did not attend) represented by political leaders including John Adams and his more radical cousin Samuel for Massachusetts and George Washington and Richard Henry Lee from Virginia. Here the path to independence was laid out with Lee giving a speech stating that 'The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.' He would later say a phrase now synonymous with the Revolution: Give me Liberty, or Give me Death! The Congress opted to lead a new boycott, prepare for a second Congress, transfer power to a new government in each colony, and send letters of invitation to the other colonies in North America. Instead on trying to base their rights on tradition they instead opted to base it on more abstract ideas based off of the Enlightenment. 

Creating Independence

In February 1775 Massachusetts was declared to be in a state of rebellion and troops were ordered to seize the arms of the local militias. This caused the now famous ride of Paul Revere warning the militia leading into the Battle of Lexington and Concord which Ralph Waldo Emmerson would later describe as 'the shot heard 'round the world'. This inspired other militias and armies to form and fight the British; May 1775 saw Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys joined with militia from Connecticut under Benedict Arnold to surround Fort Ticonderoga in New York as Henry Knox took some of the Ticonderoga cannon to help break the siege of Boston. On June 17 1775 the British fought the Americans at Breed's Hill but the battle has since been known as the Battle of Bunker Hill. Technically the British won with Sir William Howe even cutting down the original Liberty Tree but due to higher casualties and how it largely unaffected the colonists it was a hollow victory. Some have even suggested that it is more an American victory over a British one. As this was happening the Second Continental Congress convened with Georgia attending this time. However, a letter was sent to George III saying that they wanted reconciliation and blamed parliament, not him, for the division causing disdain from the radical Thomas Jefferson. Regardless the Congress raised an army and printed money to pay for it. John Adams got Washington to lead the army arguing that a southerner in charge would help bolster unity. Independence was not certain at this point but after debates and actions by the British (which we'll get to), and the publishing of Common Sense, it was decided that independence was their only choice.

The Continental Congress

On July 2 1776, not July 4, Congress formally declared independence and two days later the Declaration of Independence was issued. The Declaration remains a key focal point in the US to this day and is largely the child of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams - there were three other drafters including Franklin. The Declaration shows the radicalism of the Revolution and also its limits. Of course there is the most famous line: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. In a world when republics were rare and the ones in existence were more like monarchies the Declaration really was a radical document. Unlike the earlier Olive Branch Petition to George III the Declaration savages the monarch; as parliament was the democratic part of Britain they opted to not criticise parliament despite it issuing the hated taxes. However, it did have its limits. Jefferson was seen as getting too excited and added a criticism of slavery and the slave trade which the other drafters scrubbed out. In 1775 the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued a proclamation offering freedom to slaves if they fled their rebellious masters which caused the southern states to favour independence. Regardless the Declaration would, and still does, remain a key document in the Revolution before the creation of the Constitution.

The War of Independence

The rebels had to win their independence. The War of Independence, despite the popular image of it, was a brutal civil war. Historians are divided on whether Britain could have won; Francis Cogliano believes that they could have capitalised on their early advantages but made mistakes confirming their defeat whereas Hugh Brogan disagrees arguing that the British never really had a chance. Personally, I side more with Cogliano although Brogan is not inaccurate. Early on John Adams lamented that a third of the population were Patriots, a third were Loyalists, and a third were neutral; in reality it was largely two-fifths were Patriots (of which half actively fought), two-fifths were neutral, and a fifth were Loyalists. You may be wondering why there were Loyalists judging by the events of the 1760s and 1770s? There are no concrete reasons and Loyalists came from all walks of life. Naturally Dunmore's Proclamation encouraged slaves to join the British although more just opted to flee instead - Jefferson lost 10% of his slaves! Some feared the possible lawlessness and unleashing of liberty of the Revolution and others, (lawyers, Anglican ministers, merchants and officials), needed close ties with Britain for work. Religious and ethnic minorities, like Highland Scots in South Carolina, feared majoritarian repression if the rebels won. It is no exaggeration to say that at times the War of Independence was more like a civil war than a regular independence one. Loyalism and Patriotism shifted as well. Benedict Arnold is the most famous example of someone switching sides but it happened regularly. One British officer in Virginia commented that the town which welcomed then would be the first ones to shoot at them when the Patriots came. Also, neutrals who opted out of fighting for various reasons could suffer reprisals. For example, Quakers and Mennonites remained pacifist so saw their lands confiscated.

A depiction of a Hessian

As I mentioned in the post on the Seven Years' War I'm not a military historian so I won't go into too much detail on battles and why they were won/lost. As mentioned earlier despite Washington's skill the rebels were not certain of victory. Benedict Arnold's invasion of Canada in the winter of 1775 failed spectacularly thanks to the British forces and a smallpox outbreak decimating his forces. Washington himself was incredibly skilled lifting the siege of Boston in March 1776 causing General William Howe to head to New York hoping that there would be more Loyalists there. A force of 30,000 managed to take New York and the British would hold it until 1783. Britain also hired mercenaries from Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau,Waldeck, and Brunswick, later referred to as 'Hessians', to fight for them. Throughout the war 30,000 Hessians fought for the British costing over £4.7 million. The British also built an alliance with Native Americans, largely the Iroquois, to fight for them as well. The rebel Continental Army faced defeat after defeat but Howe could never formally wipe out Washington's forces although he came close; initially Washington had 18,000 troops which dropped to 2,000 by winter. Underpaid, when paid at all, the rebels were further demoralised and the sheer amount of desertions caused Washington to have them publicly flogged. The rebels needed a victory or face the disintegration of their army. Washington's famous crossing the Delaware at night saved the remnants of the Continental Army  writing on December 18 'I think the game is pretty near up.' The heavy-handed treatment of Americans by the British and Hessians alienated the locals with plunder and rape happening regularly. Lord Rawdon wrote that 'A girl cannot step into the bushes to pluck a rose without running the most imminent risk of being ravished, and...of consequence we have the most entertaining court-martial every day.' On Christmas night Washington crossed the Delaware again attacking the Hessian garrison at Trenton capturing nearly 1,000 followed by the defeat of a garrison at Princeton on January 3 1777. These quick victories boosted Patriot moral.

In 1777 the British hoped to splinter in half the rebel cause as General John Burgoyne invaded New England from Canada. At the same time Howe utilised the navy by loading 13,000 troops with their horses and supplies on July 23 and landing them just outside of Philadelphia. Congress fled and Washington's counterattack failed in September. However, the rebels got a reprieve when Burgoyne was defeated. Bogged down by the wilderness they had little support which evaporated when his Iroquois allies attacked local farms. One publicised incident flamed race relations when two Iroquois killed Jane McCrea, a young woman engaged to a Loyalist. Continental general Horatio Gates repeatedly fought Burgoyne finally defeating him at the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777. This was an important turning point. Early on Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris to enlist French support going as far as to dress as a Quaker to appear as a bumbling countryman based on the stereotype Europeans had of Americans. France and other powers had been sending weapons to the rebels but Saratoga showed Europe that the rebels had a chance of winning. Despite being bankrupt Louis XVI declared war on Britain and joined the rebels followed by Spain in 1779 and the Netherlands in 1780. Spain never allied themselves with the rebels, they feared that this would encourage their own colonies to rebel. Entry of other powers shifted British attention. In 1778 65% of the British army was in North America which dropped to 29% in 1780. The Caribbean and Europe replaced America as the main area for combat with Britain diverting its navy and army to the mainland in fear of a Franco-Spanish invasion. 

The famous painting of Cornwallis' surrender

Despite victories rebel victory was still no certain. The Continental Army was struggling with moral and paying troops, some of Washington's commanders were useless, and Arnold switched sides in 1780. The Patriots won back Philadelphia in 1778 following the Battle of Monmouth Court House but only because Washington overrode his subordinate, Charles Lee, who called for a retreat. With the loss of Philadelphia the British moved to the South believing that there would be Loyalists there. In December 1778 Savannah fell bringing the Georgian coastline under British rule and a second invasion in 1780 saw Charleston fall. There were few Loyalists and the Patriots resorted to guerrilla warfare which crippled the British army. Under Cornwallis the British continued fighting to no avail so he ordered a retreat to Yorktown, Virginia hoping to be picked up by the Royal Navy in 1781. However, the Battle of Chesapeake saw the French navy destroying the British navy and Cornwallis was soon trapped. In October Cornwallis surrendered ending the fighting despite the British still occupying New York, Savannah and Charleston. The 1783 Treaty of Paris would end the war and see the Americans finally become independent.

African-Americans and Revolution

A later painting of Crispus Attucks

Throughout the colonial period slavery was a big issue in the colonies where some states, like Georgia, slaves made up a greater part of the population than people who were free. Some colonists described the British taxes as reverting them to slavery despite the fact many owned slaves themselves; this was not lost on commentators, the creator of the dictionary Samuel Johnson wrote 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?' The drive for revolution were entwined with slavery and freedom. Earlier we mentioned Dunmore's Proclamation which caused the South to support independence but this started earlier in 1772. In Britain a slave, James Somerset, managed to win his freedom when a judge ruled that slavery went against English Common Law. A conspiracy emerged that this would lead to the end of slavery. Many of the revolutionaries, including Jefferson and Washington, held slaves so it was hard to reconcile equality of men and property rights when men were property. Some colonies saw the hypocrisy and started gradual emancipation where in 1774 Rhode Island and Connecticut forbade the slave trade; 1776 the Quakers forbade slavery; 1777 the Vermont Constitution banned slavery; and 1780 Pennsylvania adopted gradual emancipation as some examples. African-Americans also utilised the Revolution to end slavery. Between 1773 and 1775 five petitions using the rhetoric of the Revolution were made by Freemen to the Massachusetts government demanding emancipation. A slave would be the one to end slavery in Massachusetts though. Elizabeth Freeman was hit by her mistress in 1780 with a burning shovel and she went to lawyer Theodore Sedgewick saying this went against the new Bill of Rights. The lawsuit ended up ending slavery in Massachusetts. Despite Washington barring African-Americans from being in the Continental Army several colonies in the North allowed them to enlist. Slavery would, however, persist in the South. In Virginia when Patriots were chanting 'Liberty' nearby slaves chanted it as well causing the local police to shoot them. Here we see both the radicalism and limits of the Revolution: it managed to grant liberty but not to all.

Native Americans and Revolution

The Revolution greatly affected Native Americans. Some tribes sided with the British (like the Iroquois), others sided with the Patriots (like the Passamaquoddy), and others were divided. The Cherokee faced a split as the young sided with the British and elders sided with the Patriots. However, most tribes ended up siding with the British seeing them the lesser of two evils. After all the Declaration of Independence directly attacked the British seeking alliance with Native Americans. War lasted longer than 1775 and 1783 with the Native Americans. Lord Dunmore himself had been at war with the Shawnee and Mingos in the Ohio Valley which involved massacres of innocent people at the Yellow Creek Massacre. Smallpox is even believed to be used as a biological weapon during this war. Throughout the Revolutionary War Native Americans could be targeted, such as how Washington ordered that the Iroquois should not only be 'merely overrun but destroyed' in retaliation for their alliance with the British resulting in a civil war among the Iroquois. The famous scene in The Patriot where the British burn down a church with people inside did happen except it was Patriots burning down a church with ten Christian Native Americans inside. Fighting didn't end after the war. After 1783 the Delawares, Shawnees, Miamis, Chippewas, Ottawas, and Potawatomis formed an alliance called the Western Confederacy, (covertly armed by the British), to do as Pontiac did two decades earlier and resist Euro-American settlement. This continued conflict went badly for the newly formed USA with the Confederacy destroying American armies along the present border of Ohio and Indiana in 1790 and 1791. A Miami war chief, Little Turtle, and Shawnee, Blue Jacket, managed to defeat Arthur St. Clair so thoroughly that he saw 632 of his men dead and 264 wounded while Little Turtle just lost 66. To put it into perspective St. Clair lost lost three times more men than Custer did at the Battle of Little Bighorn. In 1795 the Western Confederacy was defeated and they lost their land. When the British invaded during the War of 1812 another pan-Indian confederacy fought the Americans again. These conflicts would be repeated across US expansion over the rest of the continent which would tragically end in genocide. 

Women

Abigail Adams

As shown earlier women were integral in enforcing support for the boycotts and they remained important throughout the Revolution and after. Some women even did enlist and fight but this was exceedingly rare. It was more common for women to be camp followers where they would follow the Continental Army and act as nurses, cooks, and cleaners in order to support the Revolution. African-American women also took part in this seeing the Revolution as a way to get racial and gender emancipation. Women were also used in propaganda either being portrayed as martyrs, like Jane McCrea, or supporting their husbands, brothers and fathers fighting. A well known poem of the Revolution is by sixteen year old Ruth Bryant from Massachusetts who in The American Maid's Choice saying that her ideal man was a valiant Patriot. As you can probably tell women's roles were seen as being linked to servitude and domesticity. Despite Abigail Adams telling John to 'remember the Ladies' they were often sidelined or forced into the home. Following the Revolution the patriarchal society ideas of Republican Motherhood were stressed. This idea was that the new republic had to have a new generation be taught about the virtues of being republicans, and it was women's roles to teach this new generation. They had to keep their husbands on the straight and narrow, teach their children to read and have lots of children in order to benefit the future generations, (if you see a parallel with The Handmaid's Tale there is a reason why). Despite the reinforcing of traditional roles it did allow a reinforcement of educating women as well as men which would allow women to capitalise on this later. Women, just like African-Americans, used the language of the Revolution to critique their role in society and some even exploited a loophole in New Jersey. The 1776 Constitution was worded in a way which said that 'all inhabitants' who owned property could vote. Widowed and unmarried women used this to vote for but unfortunately by 1807 they had changed the law to exclude women. Nevertheless, the Revolution inspired women and it is no mistake that Susan B. Anthony would later use the language to critique sexism and slavery.

Constitution and Aftermath

The Treaty of Paris gave the colonies their independence, Florida to Spain, and land between the Appalachians and the Mississippi to the new republic. The reason for this was because Britain wanted to stop French expansion and they thought the new republic would collapse returning the land to them. The US was on a shaky start: bankrupt, no allies, little legitimacy, and the British still occupied forts until 1795 supplying the Western Confederacy. Debates over an American Constitution split the political elite. The people were also disappointed. John Adams in 1776 wrote: We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government elsewhere. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient - that schools and colleges were growing turbulent - that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters... There will be no End of it. New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to...It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell.' In 1786 farmers hit hard by debt under Daniel Shay rose up in Massachusetts demanding an end to their debts and a government elected directly. In response Boston raised an army putting down the rebellion. Washington supported the crushing of it while Jefferson sided with the rebels. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 tried to form a Constitution and as Washington took part this gave it legitimacy. There were conflicting debates over the Constitution and despite Washington's opposition to it partisanship emerged. On one side represented by figures like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were the Federalists who supported a federal republic against the Anti-Federalists, (also called the Democrats, Republicans and Democratic-Republicans), who opposed this including Thomas Jefferson. In private Washington sided with the Federalists. The drafters of the Constitution wanted representation but not democracy seeing it as mob rule. Hence, why now the president decides the Supreme Court judges and the Electoral College exists - the College initially was meant to be made of people who knew politics so could decide if the public voted the right way. Slavery was also an issue. Slave states wanted slaves to be counted as it would give them greater representation while non-slave states opposed this. The 3/5 Compromise emerged as a result: three out of every five slaves would be counted in a state's representation. The ease the minds of Anti-Federalists a Bill of Rights was drafted which exists to this day. Eventually the Constitution was ratified and in 1789 Washington became the USA's first president.

Conclusion

The veneration of the Revolution: on Washington's death this was painted showing him being guided to Heaven by angels as Lady Liberty and a Native American woman weeps

The American Revolution has since been very influential with it continuing to shape the US to this day. However, the limitations of the new Constitution meant that it has since been amended various times, including abolishing slavery, banning alcohol and bringing it back, and granting women the right to vote. We have to think though: how radical was the Revolution? Gordon Wood has insisted that it is in fact radical - the ideas of equality, republicanism and property rights being legally protected in a state's constitution was radical for the time. Some thinkers even started advocating shared for communal property rights in a precursor to Marx. Although it did exclude African-Americans, women and other groups it did start a precedent for future emancipation. The secular aspects also allowed emancipation of all Christian denominations, and even Jews, which caused America to see a greater amount of Church goers than their European counterparts. However, it certainly was limited. Initially revolutions in France, Haiti, and Latin America were welcomed but they quickly soured (especially with Haiti). Thomas Paine was seen as a radical for his deism, increased calls for equality, and possible abolitionism but when he went to France he was seen as a moderate. Paine would become critical of Washington, (although that may be due to the president letting him rot in a French prison), abolitionists in the 1840s would condemn the Constitution for allowing slavery, and anarchists in the 1880s/90s would call themselves 'unrepentant Jeffersonians'. The legacy of the American Revolution really depends on whether you place ideas over actions or vice versa.

Thank you for reading. The next few World History posts will be looking at the 'Age of Revolution' and we'll be focusing next on the French Revolution. For other World History posts please see our list, and for future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, (New York, NY, Alfred K. Knopf: 1992)

-Thomas Paine, Common Sense, (London, Penguin Books: 1776, Penguin edition 1986)

-The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution

-Lance Banning, 'Republican Ideology and the Triumph of the Constitution, 1789-1793', William and Mary Quarterly, 31:2, (1974), 167-88

-Colin Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities, (New York, NY: 1995)

-Hugh Brogan, The Penguin History of the USA, Second Edition, (London, Penguin Books: 1999)

-Eric Foner, Give me Liberty! An American History, Fourth Edition, (New York, NY, W.W. Norton: 2014)

-Francis Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History, Second Edition, (New York, NY, Routledge: 2009)

-Alan Taylor, American Revolutions, (New York, NY, W.W. Norton: 2016)

World History: The Inca

Machu Picchu, an Inkan Site

Last time on World History we looked at the Triple Alliance, or as they are more widely referred to as the Aztecs. Before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492 the Americas were home to a wide variety of civilizations and cultures, and today we'll look at another one. Originating in the Andes there was a short lived city-based empire which stretched from the Ecuadorian/Colombian border all the way down to Santiago in Chile. This empire was the Incan Empire. For the purposes of this post we shall refer to the empire and the people who made it as Tawantinsuyu, (the empire), and the Inka, (the ruling people). We will not be using Inca as this is the European spelling of the ruling people; Inka is the spelling in Quechua. The Inkas ruled a unique empire with the Spanish seeing it as a wealthy kingdom possibly home to El Dorado while in the twentieth-century some historians had started to portray them as the first socialists or even the first communists. Before we look the Tawantinsuyu and the Inka we must first look at the world they emerged in.

Pre-Inka Andes

Image of the Andes

Historians, such as Nigel Davies, have stressed the continuation of the Inka with earlier Andean civilizations. You may be wondering how so many civilizations emerged in a mountain range though. When we've looked at other emerging civilizations ranging from the Maya to China to the Mexica to the Greeks none have appeared in mountain ranges. Peru, the heart of the Inkan Empire, has a very complex topography containing 84 of the 117 different types of life zones that can be found. It also experiences two ocean currents: El Niño and the Humboldt. In a small area we have coasts, puna (high grasslands), wet grasslands, rainforests, deserts, fog meadows (lomas) and rivers. El Niño supplies torrential rain to Peru's northern coast while fifty rivers cross the Peruvian desert. This helped create fertile land rich in nutrients for the first agriculturalists over 4,000 years ago. Through terracing great areas of arable land emerged in the Andes themselves. From around 1800 BCE the first pottery was made in the Peruvian lands.

Tawantinsuyu was not the first empire to exist in the Andes. Craig Morris and Adriana von Hagen put emphasis on two societies which laid the groundwork for the Inka, (although there were many others): Wari and Tiwanaku. These were both city states which both inspired the Inka and allowed them to rise. Tiwanaku was founded by 200 CE on the southern shores of Lake Titicaca which prospered for almost a thousand years with buildings made of sun-dried mudbrick. Around 600 CE to the north of Tiwanaku in the Ayacucho basin Wari was founded. Wari founded an empire which helped spread its art style across the central Andes, although it shares some iconography with Tiwanaku indicating that Wari borrowed some elements from Tiwanaku or that they shared a common ancestral tradition. Tawantinsuyu emerged four centuries after the collapse of Wari and Tiwanaku in Cuzco where the city-states either held sway, (Wari), or bordered, (Tiwanaku). There was a void in the Cuzco region left by these empires which the Inka filled. However, they borrowed or were inspired by both, particularly the Wari. The Inka adopted administrative tools and models from the Wari, (such as the khipu which we shall later address), and possibly even Quechua as a lingua franca for the empire. Now we must deal with the origins of the Inka and Tawantinsuyu.

Origins

Colonial image of the first king, Manco Capac

Through archaeological evidence, Spanish sources, and what remains of Inkan sources we can piece together the origins of the Inka. Until around 1200 CE the people who would become the Inka were pastoralists until they settled and founded the Kingdom of Cuzco. Through oral and Spanish written sources we do have a story for how the Kingdom of Cuzco was formed. The Inkan people emerged from a cave, called Pacariqtambo, led by four brothers and four sisters, (the brothers and sisters were married as well). They were led by Ayar Manco and his sister/wife Mama Ocllo. Manco had a golden staff which when planted would offer his people a place to live. On the way the strongest brother, who could level mountains, Ayar Cachi was sent into a cave to retrieve some golden cups, (in some versions a llama), to stop his boasting. When inside his brothers sealed the cave and Cachi was turned to stone becoming a huaca, a sacred object. When they reached Huanacauri, a hill, a second brother, Ayar Uchu, was turned into a huaca as he wished to stay to watch over the people. The last brother, Ayar Auca, grew tired and then grew wings so he could travel alone. He flew to Cuzco and became the Cuzco Huaca becoming the first city guardian. With no one to challenge him Manco goes to Cuzco with his sisters where they encounter the Huallas and Alcavizas. Depending on the version either the small band defeats the two tribes, or one of the sisters (Mama Huaca) kills a soldier with a bola scaring the rest off. After the battle Ayar Manco builds the first Coricancha temple and founds Cuzco and he changes his name to Manco Capac. Compared to the origin stories of Rome, the Aztecs and Athens this is a rather humble story. In some versions Manco Capac becomes undisputed king basically by accident rather than his own efforts. 

That story deals with the origins of Cuzco. There is a second myth which deals with the founding of Tawantinsuyu. Our sources are more reliable as we enter the fifteenth-century but then again Nigel Davies highlights how we can't take them at face value. The Inkas didn't really use their writing system to record chronology saving it instead for mainly recording things like censuses and tribute, and many which did record history were unfortunately burnt by the Spanish. Many of the chronicles that we do have are written post-Conquest and act more as histories, such as Comentaries Reales written in 1609 by Garcilasco de la Vega. We do have some good idea of what happened though. Bordering Cuzco was a loose confederation of the Chankas, (not a solidified threat as many chronicles made out), but it was enough to be a threat to the rising Inkas. During the reign of the eighth ruler Wiraqocha the Chankas sent a message to Cuzco demanding that the ruler surrender. He fled with his heir, Inka Urco, so his other son Inka Yupanki decided to defend Cuzco. He had a dream where the creator god Inti told him that he would be 'greater than any of his ancestors...because he would conquer the Chankas who were marching on Cuzco'. As the Chankas approached Cuzco the stones in the fields surrounding Cuzco turned into warriors, called pururaucas, who helped him defeat the Chankas. When he took the prisoners to his father, who was expected to tread on them as expected, his father got Inka Urco to do so disrespecting Yupanki. Apparently he staged a palace coup killing Urco, and then returning to Cuzco to fight the regrouping Chankas. The battle saw the slaughter of the Chankas and afterwards Yupanki became known as Pachakuti or 'transformer of the world'. It is quite possible though that this all never happened and that Inkan conquest of the Chankas was less sudden. Apparently Pachakuti had Machu Picchu constructed as a family retreat and he reorganized the empire around 1438. At the center was Cuzco surrounded by four provincial governments: Chinchasuyu, Antisuyu, Kuntisuyu and Qullasuyu. This formed Tawantisuyu, or the 'Four Regions'.

Khipu

Khipu

The khipu is so unique that I believe that it deserves to be talked about by itself. Charles Mann has described the khipu as being 'reminiscent of today's computer languages'. This was the Inkan writing system. Made of camelid fiber the khipu is a series of knots which recorded numbers in primarily a decimal system. For years it was believed that they only recorded numbers for purposes of tribute, censuses etc. but since 1981 when Robert and Marcia Ascher that it actually recorded writing. The material, spin, ply, and color of each string, and the direction of the knot referred to what we would call a letter. Gary Urton has described it as a 'seven-bit binary array' which had 1,536 'information units' compared to 1,500 cuneiform signs and the 600-800 Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphics by the time of the Conquest. The Inka likely did not pioneer the khipu. Evidence suggests that the Wari had a similar system as well. As the khipu was made of string and knots it was easy for the Spanish conquerors to burn them compared to the stone writing system of the Maya and Mexica. 

Administration

Someone using a khipu. Image by Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala in the later 16th/early 17th century

The Inka had a very efficient administrative system recorded on the khipu. All this was done with Quechua as a uniting language as the empire covered many different cultures outside the Valley of Cuzco. Aymara and Uru were also widely used in the empire with Aymara being most popular after Quechua. As a result 'conquest' and 'annexation' of peripheral regions were never completed and what was conquered through force was done through other means. The Inkan roads were famous and linked the empire together. The roads were some of the greatest in history. Cuzco was the administrative center and the largest settlement which was described by Cristobal de Molina as being 'a town of more than forty thousand citizens in the city-center alone-with suburbs and outlying settlements around Cuzco to 10 or 12 leagues, I believe there must have been 200,000 Indians'. In Cuzco the emperor resided and was honored, Louis Baudin refers to him as a 'Man-God'. Incest happened as the emperor had to marry his eldest sister, as in keeping with their origin myth. The empress could hold immense power. Pachakuti's wife often ruled in his place when he was away conquering and personally organized relief for victims of an intense earthquake in Arequipa. Tupac Yupanqui's wife, (Pachakuti's daughter), even got the Yanayacu to join the empire. As mentioned earlier outside of Cuzco there were the four suyu ruled by what can be described as a governor. 

The empire also used a policy called mitmaq or mitma. This was a policy which combined colonization with ethnic cleansing at its worst. The mitmaq was a policy to encourage submission without wasting resources suppressing an unruly people. This policy of ethnic cleansing moved less cooperative communities to loyal communities breaking up the unruly peoples so they could not organize resistance against Cuzco. It was described by Spanish chronicler Juan de Betanzos: These Indians were young married men with their wives, their things, and seeds from their lands so they could be placed as mitimaes in the valleys and lands surrounding Cuzco...If the natives should rebel, and the [mitmaq] supported the [Inka] governor, the natives would be punished and reduced to service of the Incas. Likewise, if the [mitmaq] stirred up disorder, the natives put them down. In this way these rulers had their empire assured against revolt.'Thousands could be moved with this system. This was done via the roads.

An Inkan Road

The Inkas built over 20,000 km of road! They are now officially a UNESCO World Heritage Site. These systems were linked by way-stations offering shelter to official travelers. The roads aren't consistent throughout the empire. From Cuzco to Quito in modern Ecuador with large impressive roads whereas in the south, (Chile and Argentina), they are rather small. 

Religion

An image of Viracocha

Religion was extremely important for the Inka. Many different religions existed in the empire, and like the Romans knew that imposing their religion onto the conquered meant that they could not sustain an empire. To ensure their power sometimes the Inka would associate themselves with local deities and oracles, as well as honoring local shrines. However, the conquered had to acknowledge that the sun and moon were superior to local gods. A Spanish chronicler, Juan de Betanzos, who spoke Quechua and was married to Emperor Atawallpa's niece/consort has spoken in detail about Inkan religion. The Inkas were polytheistic and even have several creation stories, (with one concerning Lake Titicaca to possibly link themselves to the Wari). The creator god, Viracocha, had created a race of shadowy people but was displeased with them so turned them to stone. He then emerged from Lake Titicaca where he created the sun, moon and the first humans. It was also stated that he was the ancestor/father to Manco Capac. The sun god Inti, however, was most revered where in some stories he is the father of Manco Capac. It is believed that the worship of Inti above all was put forward by Pachakuti. 

Religion varied for the aristocracy and commoners. For one, commoners could not utter the name Viracocha. Rituals were vital for everyone and were recorded on a lunar calendar of 354 days although the elite used a precise solar calendar to link with Inti. Temples were important centers, especially the temple for Inti in Cuzco called Qorikancha, where thousands congregated to observe sunrises and sunsets. Sacrifice was done but this was largely a sacrifice of maize or a llama. Human sacrifice did occur but in many areas figurines made of silver, good or wood were used. Here we see a difference between the Mexica and the Inka. For the Mexica humanity was in debt so repaid the debt via blood sacrifice; for the Inka this was not present and veneration of ancestors was more prevalent. Mummification was common for the ruling elite, especially for emperors. For commoners religious worship was common with many praying daily to household gods. Pregnant women offered more in sacrifice to ensure that her baby would survive, (curious side note Inkan children weren't referred to as a human until age 2/3 due to high infant mortality rate and not given a gender specific name until age 7). 

Economy

An Inkan terrace for farming

At the start I mentioned that the Inkas have sometimes been described as being communist or socialist. The reason for this is that the Inkas didn't have markets or currency. While in Mexico the Spanish spoke often of the markets being blown away by them; in Peru they make no mention of them. Instead of a market economy the economy was ran through reciprocity. In exchange for corvee labor, military obligations and taxes in the form of crops or textiles people would be supplied with food during hard times, feasts, and projects terraces. Although bartering did occur most of the economy was ran via reciprocity. The Inkas were famous for their precious metals like gold and silver. How then did this fit into the Inkan world? The value of goods depended on their role in the system of social relationships and rituals. Gold and silver were needed for ceremony which formed the backbone of society. Hence these precious metals became important in society.

Conquest

Depiction of the Conquest

In less than a hundred years since the formation of Tawantinsuyu under Pachakuti the empire fell to invaders from another world. In 1492 Christopher Columbus brought the Americas to the attention of Europe. In the 1520s Wayna Qhapaq was consolidating his northernmost conquests in the far north, (modern Columbia and Ecuador). While there he heard stories of strangers being spotted. In 1521 Hernan Cortes had destroyed the Triple Alliance, (Aztec Empire), in Mexico. The Spanish Empire had been building an empire in the Americas bringing with it explorers and colonists but more importantly disease. Smallpox had devastated the people of Mesoamerica and the disease would spread across the Americas killing thousands if not millions in something called the Great Dying. Tawantinsuyu was no exception. Before they met the Spanish they encountered their diseases-measles, influenza and smallpox-and lacking resistance to the disease thousands died in the Inkan Empire. Wayna Qhapaq and his designated heir both succumbed to one of the diseases sometime between 1524 and 1528 causing a succession war. While this was happening a conquistador named Francisco Pizarro in 1524 had attempted to find a rich 'tribe', (and tried again in 1525), and in 1530/1 he made landfall at Tumbas in northern Peru. In 1532 with 150 men on foot and horse he set off to meet one of the brothers in the succession war, Atawallpa. Like Cortes in Mexico he recruited locals who had opposed Atawallpa. On November 15, 1532 they arrived at Atawallpa's temporary capital of Cajamarca where Pizarro's secretary commented that the city was 'larger than any city in Spain'. Atawallpa greeted them warmly but Pizarro feared that he would betray them so conspired to kidnap the emperor. They met with Atawallpa demanding that he accept Christianity and that he submit to the Spanish king. Due to translation errors the emperor threw a Bible which the Spanish used as a provocation to attack. It was a massacre leaving hundreds of Atawallpa's men dead. The emperor was captured but he had a chance to be released: he had to fill a room full of gold and twice that of silver. He did but Pizarro would not let him go. When the other brother was assassinated the Spanish used this as an excuse to blame Atawallpa and used it to execute him in 1533. Over the next thirty-five years the Spanish began a bloody genocide against the Inka. Atawallpa's nephew, Tupac Amaru, was leading the resistance against them until 1572 when he was captured and executed.

Although many died in fighting more were killed thanks to diseases including typhus, smallpox and influenza. Between 60 and 90% of the Inkan population died thanks to European diseases. Already broken thanks to disease and civil war the conquest was easy for the Spanish. With thousands dead through disease by the time of Tupac Amaru's death in 1572 nothing could bring back the Inkas.

Conclusion

The Inka remain a key point in South American history. Often overlooked their brief empire offered a way to unite a huge swath of land, (just 1000 km smaller than Alexander the Great's empire). With a unique writing system and an economic system which can be easily described as communistic the Inkas are a key point in history. Their legacy is also important. Their usage of Quechua spread the language so much that it is the official language of several countries, including Peru. Several sites including the roads and Machu Picchu are UNESCO World Heritage Sites showing their importance. Finally the leader of a Peruvian independence movement in the late eighteenth-century changed his name to be named after Tupac Amaru who resisted the Spanish years earlier. They may have been a short-lived society but they left a huge impact. Next time we will look closer at the Great Dying as well as other aspects of European colonialism.

Thank you for reading and the sources I have used are as follows:

-The Incas by Craig Morris and Adriana von Hagen

-The Discovery and Conquest of Peru by Pedro de Cieza de Leon, (translated by Alexandra Parma Cook and Noble David Cook)

-The Ancient Kingdoms of Peru by Nigel Davies

-Daily Life in Peru Under the Last Incas by Louis Baudin, (translated by Winifred Bradford)

-'Andean Societies before 1532' by John Murra, in The Cambridge History of Latin America, Volume 1: Colonial Latin America edited by Leslie Bethell

-1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles C. Mann

-'South America on the eve of European Conquest' in The Times Complete History of the World edited by Richard Overy

For other World History posts please see here. Please like our Facebook page and follow me on Twitter @LewisTwiby. Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed it. Please leave any comments and I'll see you at the next World History post when we discuss colonialism.