Pre-contact Meso-American societies shaped all of the Americas with the spread of the "three sisters" (corn, beans, squash), artistic sensibilities, and diverse products. See link for examples of these influences :
Archaeologists keep pushing the arrival date of humans to the Americas back to an earlier period. See link to map of Bering Straight, where the first human migrations originated:
The "Columbian Exchange" has been a controversial topic among historians. See link for a historian's perspective of the topic:
Image of the "exchange" in the colonial period:
On Monday we also discussed some of the larger themes of U.S. history that continue to shape our public discourse. Op-ed pieces are a great source for "taking the pulse" of American consciousness and the (mis)use of U.S. history. The anniversary of 9/11 provides ample examples:
Questions for blog discussion:
Should the exchange of ideas, people, and biota (animals, plants, diseases, etc.) be called the "Columbian Exchange?"
Should history before 1492 in the Americas be called "pre-historic?"
During the first encounters with the colonists and the Native Americans there was not a good deal of exchange taking place between the two peoples. Instead the colonists brought and took what they wanted to benefit themselves. Any benefits that the Native Americans felt through the “exchange” was simply a side effect. The “exchange” was purely one sided. Due to this, I believe that the exchange within in the Columbian exchange should be renamed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that history before 1492 should not be called pre historic. The Native peoples of the Americas had a long history before and after the colonists arrived. Their histories did not begin when the colonists landed on their shores. Just because the colonists did not know their histories does not mean that the Americas prior to 1492 was before recorded history.
When the colonists arrive in North America they do come off as the only ones who are feeding their ideas and customs into the Native Americans. Although the colonists were more forceful, the native's lifestyle did leave an impression on the travelers. If anything they gave the colonists a more broad view to take on the world with, allowing different customs and ways of living to be understood. It was very much so an exchange so I believe the term "Columbian Exchange" is used properly.
ReplyDeleteNo I don't believe American history prior to 1492 should be called prehistoric. The Native Americans accomplished a lot on their own and didn't need the help of the colonists to live stably. Life on North America was prosperous and those that inhabited it had stopped migrating and following game with the seasons. They had figured out how to grow crops on their own and live sustainably throughout the seasons without changing location. Men and Woman also held important roles within their family/ tribes. I believe that the pre-historic era ended before Native American tribes had established themselves and were living successfully on their own.
I think the name “Columbian exchange” is suited when describing the exchange between the Old and New World. Columbus initiated this exchange and there was indeed an exchange of various types. Most people would agree that the Europeans benefited from this exchange more greatly than the natives did, but the natives also received plants and animals among other things.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that history before 1492 in the Americas should be called pre-historic. Much rather I believe that history there before 1492 should be called pre-Columbus, or pre-colonization if anything at all. History in the Americas before 1492 was not pre-historic since there was still recorded history in one way or another. The natives did exist before 1492 and they had their own history.
I think that the "Columbian Exchange" should remain as titled. It was named after Christopher Columbus and if it weren't for him the exchange would of probably been delayed for a couple more years. So yes it is true that the exchange benefitted the Europeans more than it the Natives, however the Natives did acquire useful technological advances. It was an unfair exchange but an exchange nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that history before 1942 in the Americas should be called pre-historic. The Natives existed and had a history way before the arrival of the Europeans. Just because the rest of the world does not start learning about it until after the colonization of the Americas does not mean it pre-dates European history.
Comment submitted by Kara Mavers:
ReplyDeleteThe "Columbian Exchange" seems to be a well-fitted name for the exchange between the Spanish and Natives. This is because Columbus did bring European ideas, plants, animals and diseases to the Americas, all of which were more harmful than good. While the Natives, gave food, but were more or less forced to give up their land, and lives (to the diseases). I feel that the title of "Columbian Exchange" is very one sided and focuses on the European side of the exchange. Natives really had no voice in this exchange, therefore naming it after Columbus seems to be politically correct.
In my opinion, the time before 1942 in the Americas should not be called pre-historic. This is because before this time Natives existed on the land, and this existence should not be discredited. They had a very populated and complex existence. Their history is just as equally important to American history as European colonization.
The Columbian Exchange is a pretty straight forward name for defining the event when the Spanish exchanged "new goods" with the Natives. However, If you you think about it, the Spanish weren't the only ones who had something new to exchange. The Natives had pottery, stone tools, fur robes, rare shell beads, different crops, plants, the idea of animism and much more. The name fits well because The Spanish had goods similar to what the Natives had only in a more "advanced" shape or form which makes their exchange bigger than that of the Natives. But the name leaves out the Natives and what they had to offer during this exchange and if the Natives had no goods to offer or anything good enough to offer, where would the exchange in the Columbian Exchange be?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the history taking place before 1492 should be called or considered pre-historic. To me, pre-historic reminds me of the time of the dinosaurs and a time in history where we have very little information about to understand completely or even learn from. The Natives aren't that old and we know enough about the time before 1492, we can understand it pretty well, and we can definitely learn from it.
The name Columbian exchange, I believe, is well suited because Columbus initiated the exchange of goods and ideas between the Americas and Europe. some may say the Europeans benefited more from this exchange seeing how they took advantage of the Natives in the sense that Europeans exchanged there useless items, that the Natives have never seen, for items that were very valued in the European culture, but that is merely an opinion. In my point of view the both benefited because yea the Natives gave away gold but to them it was not valued highly like the Europeans valued it.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that history prior to 1492 should be called pre-historic. Prior to 1492 there was already natives living in the Americas in well established society's that had already been around for a couple hundreds of years. These societies functioned well as a whole as good as a European one.
In using the words "Columbian Exchange", I believe that the exchange of ideas, people, biota should be called the Columbian Exchange. This was the first time that people interacted with a different group of people that they had never dealt with before. This was a huge deal for both sides of the exchange. It was a test of trust in people that are complete strangers. There were some doubts on how this interaction was going to pan out, but they were all willing to try.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the history that happened before Columbus should be called "pre-historic". Even though it happened before any rea documentation, it still happened and it should be given some recognition. Everything that has happened in the Americas is all part of our history and not pre-history. If we label it as "pre", it sounds like we had a trial run of a new product. History is history, no matter what.
The Colombian Exchange was really a one sided event, where the Europeans took all the Natives had a left them with disease and empty maize fields. To call it an exchange does not do justice to the reality of what happened. This event was more of a massacre than anything else. Pretty much as close to genocide as it gets.
ReplyDeleteNow to consider the history before the America's as prehistoric is a fallacy. Pre-historic refers to history before that could not be notated because of a lack of communicating ability or common language. Pre-history refers to the times when people could not pass on their history in written forms. The Native Americans did trace their lineage. Before Europeans came there was a complete world with the same amount of bloodshed and feuds as that of Europe.