Publicist seems such a modern term. Did they have those back then?
"basically his publicist...", it was his secretary
Certainly they could have been wiped out. However, the thesis is not that 500 Spaniards constituted an invincible force. Had they been wiped out, are we to imagine that the Aztec Empire would have averted its inevitable doom? No, of course not.
The point I made related to the interactions between Cortez, his Native allies and the Aztecs and how they saw the situation as it was actually happening, not based on hindsight.
In an alternate history, it's unlikely the Aztec Empire would have survived, but not impossible (at least for several more centuries) if they had established trading relations with another European power.
I fail to see how recognizing an asymmetry in technology between the peoples of two different continents somehow equates to dismissing the disadvantaged peoples as unimportant, or that recognizing the asymmetry means advocating that the disadvantaged peoples history should be suppressed or ignored. It doesn't.
Again, not the point I made.
I said dismissing the
changes as unimportant, not the
people as unimportant.
If you look at a video like this you will see borders changing as different groups gain and lose power (obviously this video isn't directly relevant, it is just to illustrate my point)
If you did this for America, you would see various European and various Native American groups gaining and losing territory over a long period of time as they take territory from each other. It would not simply be European groups expanding and Native groups in decline.
My point is that when you have NA tribes being the dominant powers over vast areas for centuries, including some which nominally are claimed by Europeans, it is not really accurate to paint it as a situation where they were unable to compete, despite any technological disadvantages (although overall tech disadvantage, didn’t necessarily relate to tech disadvantage in specific situations).
My view is that you would have a much better understanding of the process if you looked at it as a long process where different European and NA groups cooperated and competed for centuries made major gains and suffered significant losses, rather than simply considering it a one sided process of relentless dominance by Europeans.
Really? Should we suspend our reasoned skepticism and critical analysis because he is a Finnish professor at Oxford? Is it because he is Finnish, a professor, or a professor at Oxford that we should give him a pass? Perhaps it is the virtue of all three.
You can do better than that. Read again and see if you really think I said anything remotely like this.
You should understand the difference between a comparative and an absolute statement. “
Less reason to have an agenda
than” clearly doesn’t mean anything close to what you say.
And that’s before we consider that you also cut off the 2nd part of my reply to your question, including my own opinion on his work, a note that his work is quite well received in his field and a link to what I explicitly note is a (partially) critical review.
I’m not really sure how you could possibly interpret that as a statement you should “accept anything he says uncritically”.
This comment does not seem in keeping with your recent comments in another thread:
Why do you think that?
No one is neutral on any issue, that doesn’t mean they should be considered to have “an agenda” though as that is generally considered pejorative and is different to mere bias and preference.
In some sense, everyone always has an agenda in anything they consciously do, but this does not reflect the standard usage of the term.
For example, Would you consider yourself to have “an agenda” in every post you make here? If I put your incorrect reflection of my views down to “your agenda” rather than you making an honest mistake would you see that as a fair and good faith discussion point?
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.