How would you change history?

Mesoamerican civilizations apparently had some fairly extensive writings on a wide range of subjects - history, science, religion, medicine, cosmology - of which only a handful survive. The Aztec emperor Itzcoatl burnt the pre-Aztec histories in order to rewrite the founding myths of Tenochtitlan and eliminate competition for the state cult of Huitzilopochtli. The Spanish royal and ecclesiastical authorities burnt many more to "save poor sinners' souls." Between Itzcoatl and the Spaniards, there's no telling what knowledge was lost.
 
MilesGregarius said:
Between Itzcoatl and the Spaniards, there's no telling what knowledge was lost.

I'll be honest, nothing of lasting value except to scholars of history.
 
I'll be honest, nothing of lasting value except to scholars of history.

And you know this how? What of a potential Aztec, Maya, or Teotihuacan Homer, Plato, or Cicero? A Confucious, a Gautama, or an Aquinas? A Beowulf or a Morte d'Arthur? A Divine Comedy or a City of God?

Not to mention that the Maya were extrordinary mathemeticians and astronomers, perhaps the best the world had seen until the 20th Century.
 
MilesGregarius said:
And you know this how? What of a potential Aztec, Maya, or Teotihuacan Homer, Plato, or Cicero? A Confucious, a Gautama, or an Aquinas? A Beowulf or a Morte d'Arthur? A Divine Comedy or a City of God?

There's plenty of good written works in a multitude of obscure languages. But here's a test, name me one historical writer from a Malay society who has stuck in your mind. If you can't come up with one, is my point taken? I can assure you there were some brilliant writers and poets in Java, for instance, who stand up very well to some of the great Western masters. But nobody knows about them, outside either (A) academia or (B) a classical education in Java. Most Javanese would be aware of them, but few would have read them and I don't think there's been all that much of a loss on the whole. Exactly the same holds today, most people in the west would be aware of Plato, Homer and Cicero, but have they read them? Of course not, and have they lost anything for not doing so? Not really, all three are pretty irrelevant to modern man.

MilesGregarius said:
Not to mention that the Maya were extrordinary mathemeticians and astronomers, perhaps the best the world had seen until the 20th Century.

I don't see how that refutes my point. It's not like anyone is going to crack open a Mayan Maths Book today (if we had one) for a high-school maths class tomorrow.
 
Exactly the same holds today, most people in the west would be aware of Plato, Homer and Cicero, but have they read them? Of course not, and have they lost anything for not doing so? Not really, all three are pretty irrelevant to modern man.

I'd say the majority of the developed world has read or watched derivations of stories attributed to Homer. As for Plato and Cicero, their ideas were highly influential on many leading thinkers of the last few centuries, and their influence pervades our society and our thinking. Unless you think philosophical ideas and ways of thinking have zero effect on society outside of academia I don't see how you could argue otherwise.
 
Exactly the same holds today, most people in the west would be aware of Plato, Homer and Cicero, but have they read them? Of course not, and have they lost anything for not doing so? Not really, all three are pretty irrelevant to modern man.

If that's meant to support the claim that only "scholars of history" would be interested in the works in question, it's not a very good argument. It's true that most people have not read Plato, Homer, and Cicero. But the people who have read them are not exclusively "scholars of history". In fact I would think that probably most of these people aren't "scholars of history" - they are more likely to be people interested in literature and philosophy than history, since the authors in question may be historical but they are not historians. To say that these authors are "pretty irrelevant to modern man" is quite unwarranted. They are no less relevant now than they were when they were written. They are minority interest now because they were always minority interest, because the subjects they write about are not of interest to everyone. I can assure you that there's nothing about "modern man" which makes Plato any less relevant to him than to ancient man; if "modern man" is uninterested in Plato it's for the same reason that ancient man was too, for the most part. Similarly, most people haven't read Dickens or Chesterton or Steinbeck, or indeed McEwan or Rushdie, but you could hardly conclude from that that only "scholars of history" would be interested in them. And most people haven't read Darwin or Newton or Galileo either; and most people in their day didn't read them either; it doesn't follow from that that what they wrote was unimportant or irrelevant.

Your argument may support the claim that any rediscovered Aztec literature would be of interest to only a limited number of people but that is (a) uncontroversial and (b) irrelevant to its importance.
 
I would tell Eve not to eat the fruit and to not listen to the serpent.
 
Upon reflection, I'll note something, the only way you seem to be able to argue this point is to look at the paragons of Western culture. All I've been shown is that texts which are inscribed into the literary canon of Western culture might have a wider readership. Which while tangentially related, is hardly what I argued in my second post. Nobody here can name a single Malay voice which just goes that little way to show that authors who are every bit as good as the great Western minds are simply not recognizable. I don't see why a potentially great Mayan or Aztec writer is going to do any better breaking into the public conscience than the myriad of already known Malay writers.

Plotinus said:
It's true that most people have not read Plato, Homer, and Cicero.

They're not my examples, I just ran with them for the record.

Plotinus said:
But the people who have read them are not exclusively "scholars of history". In fact I would think that probably most of these people aren't "scholars of history" - they are more likely to be people interested in literature and philosophy than history, since the authors in question may be historical but they are not historians.

That last part doesn't necessarily follow. It doesn't matter if they were historians or not, it only matters for what purpose they are being used. The vast majority of Classical Southeast Asian sources I use were not historians -- I would go so far as to say, that not a single one is a historian. But that doesn't stop me using them for historical purposes or for that matter Classical scholars using Cierco and Plato as historical sources. I also think your reading the use of 'scholar of history' rather to literally. I would class most people here on this forum as scholars of history -- not necessarily University trained, but I don't believe that's all that large a defect for the most part.

Plotinus said:
Your argument may support the claim that any rediscovered Aztec literature would be of interest to only a limited number of people but that is (a) uncontroversial and (b) irrelevant to its importance.

So in terms of importance, could you please name me a single Malay writer of repute. I'll even accept titles. I may also accept vague, cryptic or half remembered summaries. If you can't, then I don't see how you can possibly argue that it is important, or any more merit worthy than a a whole corpus of non-Western literature which you can't even provide a single smidgen of information about. And if importance is assessed as the value that a person or persons holds something in, then I can certainly see it might be valuable to persons interested in the subject (and judging by the fact that I don't see English lit. students or Philosophy students digging into already existent texts, I think its safe to say that it will probably be only of historical interest).

lumpthing said:
I'd say the majority of the developed world has read or watched derivations of stories attributed to Homer. As for Plato and Cicero, their ideas were highly influential on many leading thinkers of the last few centuries, and their influence pervades our society and our thinking. Unless you think philosophical ideas and ways of thinking have zero effect on society outside of academia I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

I'll be crude, developed being a euphemism for white?
 
How exactly are Confucious or Gautama "paragons of Western culture"? As a Westerner myself, Western works are more familiar to me, thus my chosen list of examples is obviously deficient.

Are you totally unaware of the artistry and the influence of the Upanashids? The I Ching? The Tao Te Ching? The Art of War? The Annalects of Confucious? The Book of Five Rings? The Tale of Genji? All of these are equal to anything in the Western Canon. The loss of any one of them would diminish all human culture, not merely that of India or China or Japan. I am not a scholar in any sense, not even casually, of Indian or Chinese history, but I am familiar with the above titles simply from perusing the bookshelves of any decent sized English language bookstore.

What is more, the effect of the loss of this material upon the modern cultures of the nations that arose where the Aztec and Maya once reigned can not be fully guaged. It is conceivable that with a deeper, more fully realized indigenous cultural tradition, modern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras would not be as dysfunctional as they are today, that continuity of tradition would have allowed for a smoother, less traumatic path of development. Further, the loss to succeeding generations of artists - whether Mexican, Guatemaltecan, or international - will never be known. Perhaps De Bello Civili is only of interest to "scholars of history", but its loss would likely have denied the rest of us a little piece of Shakespeare's genius.

As for the Malay, my ignorance of what genius may or may not lie within their literature is utterly irrelevant to what in all probability was lost with the eradication of the sum total of Mesomarican literary tradition. The destruction of the Aztec and Maya libraries does not equate to the loss of Malay or English writings. It is the equivalent of the loss of everything ever written Latin and Greek - an entire civilization's accomplishments, not merely one country's.

Finally, mathematics and astronomy are both the result of a long, slow accumulation of knowledge. Modern mathematics, and all that modern civilization has built upon mathematics, would not be any where nearly as advanced if one were to strip away the contributions of only one of the Greeks, the Arabs, or the Indians. Whether even a single non-specialist ever studied Maya science has zero bearing on what a later genius such as a Newton or an Einstein could have done to advance all of human civilization with the knowledge denied to us by the Spanish authorities. And this does not even take into consideration the death of a living, breathing tradition of intellectual inquiry that might have led to god-knows-what - earlier space flight, the cure for cancer, cold fusion, a longer lasting light bulb.
 
I'll be crude, developed being a euphemism for white

I meant developed in the usual sense of 'more economically developed countries'. From what little I know I would say it has had a great deal of influence on all more economically developed countries (including non-white-majority countries like Japan and Singapore) and many 'less economically developed countries', especially North Africa and the Middle East where Ancient Greek thought had a strong hold over academic culture for much longer than it did in Europe.

Anyway my point was that even if you haven't directly studied the thoughts of a particular ancient writer that doesn't mean their thoughts have not had a major influence on your life. To say otherwise would be like saying you're great great great great great great grandmother has had no impact on who you are, because you don't know who she is. Influential people can influence other people who influence other people who influence other people and there's probably a lot less dilution of ideas than there are dilutions of DNA as they're passed on through the generations.

Also, I don't see why ignorance about Malay literature demonstrates that the same ignorance would be inevitable in the case of Mesoamerican civilization. Why shouldn't the comparison be between Mesoamerican culture and Indian, Chinese or Egyptian culture?

In any case even if only a tiny minority of academics feel the loss, I don't think that means it wouldn't be a huge loss. I don't think value is determined by the extent of popular knowledge. Value is not the same thing as influence or mass-awareness.
 
I would kill Genghis Khan, I'd like to prevent him uniting the Mongols, from killing the Song and devastating the Middle East, Central Asia and so forth.
 
I would make Ilkhanate and Golden Horde convert to nestorian christianity instead of islam. it would make world history much more interesting.
 
I would go back to kill Stalin and make sure that Trotsky gets in power. To see if the SU become more benevolent.
 
I would go back to kill Stalin and make sure that Trotsky gets in power. To see if the SU become more benevolent.

FWIW, Robert Service concludes in his biography of Trotsky that many similar policies would have been implemented concerning the economy and such, but that the USSR would have dodged the megalomaniacal killing sprees and state terror that characterized Stalin's reign. After all, Stalin adopted the policies promoted by most of his opponents, including Trotsky, once he had successfully eliminated them or removed them from power and respectability.
 
Cunning, that.
 
I would like to stop my grandfather from having sex with my grandmother, then do so myself. In this way, I would be the only living creature in the universe able to save it by defeating the brains.

We have a Winrar. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom