Maciamo's Blog

Historical tidbits : colonisation and the spread of European languages

2010-02-25T14:10:00.004+01:00

The Spanish colonisation of the Americas

Contrarily to what many people think, it took a long time (many centuries) for the Spaniards to convert the native Amerindian population to Christianity and to establish Spanish as the dominant language. Though the Spaniards set out immediately to convert the locals, the language barrier was immense. There were approximately 2,000 languages in the Americas around 1500, of which 493 were studied by Spanish linguists. In the 16th century, missionaries had no other choice but to learn Amerindian languages if they hoped to spread their faith effectively.

The linguistic conversion took even longer, and is far from complete to this day. There are still 6 million Mexicans who speak indigenous languages, and over 10 million Quechua speakers in the former Inca empire, although these were two of the first regions to be conquered by the Spaniards.

The Spanish language spread little by little through the Spanish-born administrators of the colonies, through the work of missionaries and schooling, but most importantly through inter-racial marriages. A popular image of the Spanish colonists is that of the blood-thirsty conquistador who massacred natives who refused to accept the Bible or Spanish dominion. Although true in some places during some decades,, this phenomenon has been vastly exaggerated. In fact, the Spaniards were much more likely to take native brides and recognise their offspring from such unions than the English, French or Dutch colonists. Almost all of the famous conquistadors took Amerindian wives and had mestizo children (e.g. Cortes, Pizarro, Alvarado, Benalcazar).

This was a common practice among Spanish colonists because the Spanish immigrants were overwhelmingly male, but also because it was seen as an acceptable practice. This is why Latin America has so much more mestizos than the former British colonies, anywhere in the world. It was this way that the Spanish language spread, more than by any other way, before the advent of compulsory education in the 20th century. Had the Spaniards refused to intermarry with the natives, Spanish might well have not survived the independence of the colonies. Spanish was indeed quickly forgotten in the Pacific colonies ceded to the United States in 1898 (namely the Philippines, Guam and the Marianas), a sure sign that the language was not yet established after 300 years of colonisation. The same thing happened with Dutch in Indonesia.

How European colonialism helped spread native American and Asian languages

The Europeans did not only propagate their own languages in their colonies, but also contributed to the survival and expansion of some native languages. It took over three centuries for the Spaniards and Portuguese to diffuse Spanish and Portuguese around all their American colonies. In the meantime they relied on well-established native tongues as lingua franca. Christianity was spread principally though native Amerindian languages, not in Spanish or Portuguese. The languages that benefited the most of their alliance with the new colonists are Quechua in the Andes, Guarani (and the closely related Tupinamba) in Paraguay and Brazil, and Nahuatl in Mexico. All three are still spoken and owe their survival (as opposed to many other native tongues) to their role in colonial history.

The Dutch failed to propagate their language in their worldwide colonies, except in South Africa where they settled in large numbers. The Dutch took over most of the Portuguese colonies in Asia. Portugal and Spain were united under a single monarchy between 1580 and 1640, when the Dutch proclaimed their independence from Spain and captured the Portuguese trading posts in Asia. Such was the Dutch animosity towards the Iberians that they preferred using the completely alien tongues of the indigenes as lingua franca than to resort to using Portuguese, which was already widely understood by Asian traders. This is how Bahasa Melayu (Malay) became the dominant language in Indonesia, under 300 years of Dutch rule. It is now the official and most spoken language in both Malaysia and Indonesia.

Historical tidbits : the Vandals & the Franks

2010-02-25T13:37:00.014+01:00

The Vandals

Nowadays the term "vandalism" means "wantonly destructive act". The term comes from the name of the East Germanic tribe that was pushed by the Huns into the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, and that finally settled in North Africa.

But were these people really so violent or barbaric to deserve to be remembered the way they are ? Many historians now believe that it was not the case.

It is true that the arrival of over a hundred thousands Vandals in Gaul caused great upheaval, as can be expected from such a large population movement inside a foreign land. This was not specific to the Vandals, but to any invaders. The Vandals did not have the choice, and pay a heavy price for escaping from the Huns. The allied Frankish and Roman armies killed one third of their population, who escaped southward. The Vandals were then attacked by the Visigoths in south-west France, and moved to Spain.

Despite being Christians, the Romans hated the Vandals more than the pagans. The reason is that the Vandals were not adept of Catholicism but Arianism, a version of Christianity ruled as heretic by Rome in 325.

Unable to remain peacefully in southern Spain (in Andalusia, which was probably named after the Vandals), King Geiseric ordered the construction of hundreds of ships and led his people across the Mediterranean to North Africa, then the breadbasket of the Western Roman Empire. The Romans were completely taken aback by this move, so that the Vandals did not meet any resistance in this prosperous, peaceful and remote part of the empire. They advanced as far as Carthage, one of the most important cities in the empire, and took the city without a fight.

Contrarily to popular beliefs, the Vandals did not destroy the cities they took, but preserved them and ruled peacefully over them. Many North Africans displeased with the corrupt Roman administration even greeted the new Vandal rule.

Geiseric gave freedom of religion to the Catholics, while insisting that the regime's elite follow Arianism. The common folk had low taxes under his reign, as most of the tax pressure was on the rich Roman families and the Catholic clergy.

It is interesting to note that the incidence of fair hair and eyes is still more common in some pockets of North Africa (e.g. at the border of Morocco and Algeria => see maps) than in southern Europe, due to Vandal settlements.

The only event that would have earned the Vandals their bad reputation is the sack of Rome in 455. The Vandals had previously signed a peace treaty with Emperor Valentinian III, who offered his daughter's hand in marriage to Geiseric's son. The assassination of Valentinian III by Petronius Maximus to usurp the throne prompted Geiseric to bring his troops to Rome to avenge his father-in-law. Although they did pillage Rome the Vandals did not destroy any building, respecting Pope Leo I's request.

The Roman Empire eventually collapsed, but the Roman Catholic Church survived and indeed prospered afterwards. As heir of the Christian Roman Empire it is not surprising that the Catholic Church rewrote history from its biased point of view, describing the Vandals as destructive barbarians. Historians are now rediscovering that the Vandalic rule in North Africa was in fact one of exemplary rule (compared to the power in Rome at the time, at least) and refinement in the arts, such as poetry.

Charlemagne & the Frankish Empire

Roland and Ronceveaux

Contrarily to idées reçues, it was not the Muslims of Spain who defeated the troops of Charlemagne at the Battle of Roncevaux Pass, but the Basque people. Charlemagne had in fact been invited by the wali of Barcelona, Sulaiman Ibn Yakzan Ibn al-Arabi,, to help him fight the Emir of Cordoba. Very unusually for this time of deep religious conviction, the lord protector of Christianity was helping Muslim governor against its own Muslim prince.

The battle became famous through the Song of Roland, composed centuries later. Because of this song, there is a common misconception that Roland (who died in the battle) was the nephew of Charlemagne. This isn't true. They were not even related. Roland (or Hruoland, in fact) was the governor of Brittany.

Charlemagne's coronation

It is not known whether Charlemagne planned his coronation as Emperor of the Occident. It is more likely that Pope Leo III crowned him emperor to his own surprise, so as to make of the Frankish leader the official protector of the Church. The records mention him as "Roman Emperor", and Charlemagne was indeed seen as the heir of the Western Roman Empire by both the Catholic Church and by the Muslim world. Only the Byzantines refused to acknowledge him as such, as they saw him as a rival to their own power.

Historical tidbits : the ancient Celts

2010-02-25T11:35:00.009+01:00

Celtic art, science and economy

Recent studies have shown that the Celts were more advanced than the Romans in some scientific and economic aspects. Being a non-literate society the pre-Roman Celts did not leave any trace of their political or philosophical acuity. This did not prevent them from excelling at complex rational thinking. For example, Celtic calendars, such as the Coligny calendar, have been deemed more accurate than the Roman one. In fact, they were possibly more accurate than the Gregorian calendar in use nowadays.

The Celts were also immensely rich. We now know that Julius Caesar's main reason to conquer Gaul was to lay hands on Celtic gold. Over 400 Celtic gold mines were found in France alone. The Romans had little gold on their home territory, so the conquest of Gaul was a tremendous boost to their power. This is what allowed Julius Caesar to become so powerful politically - more than the generals who conquered any other part of the Roman Empire. It is estimated that Caesar massacred 1 out of 10 million of Celts in Gaul, and put another million into slavery. In modern terms, this would be called a genocide.

The Celts also preempted the Romans in their construction of a road network across the European continent, linking Iberia, Gaul, Britain, Ireland, and the Danube basin together. The network was re-appropriated by the Romans, but was in fact Celtic in origins.

The Celtic world was very decentralised compared to the Roman one, but at least a dozen Celtic towns possessed high stone walls rivalling those of Rome at the time. The longest exceeded 5 km in length. The Servian Wall that enclosed Rome during the 500 years of the Republic gave the city a land area of 427 hectares, a size intermediary to that of the Oppidum of Manching (380 ha) and the one of Kelheim (600 ha). Republican Rome (i.e. at the time when Gaul was annexed) was far smaller than the oppidum of Heidengraben (Baden-Württemberg, Germany), which extended on 1660 hectares, an area even bigger than the Imperial Rome in its heyday, comprised within the Aurelian Walls (1370 ha).

Artistically, the embellishment on Celtic weapons, chariots and artifacts was superior to those of many Mediterranean cultures and highly regarded even by the Romans, who sometimes copied unabashedly from them. The curvaceous and interlaced La Tène style is still in use in modern Celtic arts, especially in Ireland.

Celtic warfare

Prior to the Roman conquest, the Celts had attained a level of military development similar to that of the Greeks and Romans in many respects. La Tène Celts invented the chainmail (later revived by medieval knights) and had swords and shields at least as strong as the Roman ones. The Romans copied their distinctive legionary helmets from their Alpine neighbours. Well before Julius Caesar's subjugation of Gaul, the Celts had asserted their military superiority by plundering Rome (390 BCE), and sacking Delphi (279 BCE).

Their defeat against the Romans circa 50 BCE was mainly due to the fact that they were disunited against the enemy, prone to factionalism and internal conflicts. In fact, a large number of the Gaulish tribes sided with the Romans against their neighbours. After the incorporation of Gaul, Gaulish warriors joined the Roman legion to conquer other Celtic territories like Britain or Iberia. The Romans did not win all by themselves, and may not have been able to without judicious alliances with Celtic warlords.

Celtic culture & lifestyle

The Greeks and Romans put water in their wine. The Celts didn't, which was seen as a barbaric practice by the Gallo-Romans. Nevertheless we seem to have favoured the barbaric practice over time and now discredit the Greco-Roman way of drinking.

The Celts practised human sacrifice to the gods, typically near water (lake, river, spring). They also decapitated the defeated after a battle, took the heads back home as trophies, and exposed the headless bodies hanging on wooden frames. Sometimes, they replaced humans by huge amphoras of wine, and simulated the decapitation by cutting off the top of the amphora with a sword. The spilling wine would represent the blood.

Ancient Celtic society gave much more freedom and power to women than the Greeks and Romans did. Greco-Roman housewives were prohibited to do business and mostly sequestrated in their home under the supervision of male family members (not unlike the condition of Muslim women in Islamic countries nowadays). Celtic women could sometimes become powerful tribe leaders. The empowerment of women has remained stronger to this day in European countries of Celtic and Germanic descent than in Italy or Greece.

Vegetarianism, good or bad ?

2009-11-24T14:17:00.006+01:00

Vegetarianism is increasingly popular in Western countries. People can become vegetarians for a number of reasons. Some just don't really like meat so much. Others think that it is healthier not to eat meat (we will see below that the opposite is true). Modern sensitivities have also led people to give up their carnivorous habits simply because they cannot bear the thought of killing animals for their own survival. The most common reason to be a vegetarian worldwide is still religion, namely Hinduism and Jainism, who have close to a billion followers.

Not all self-confessed vegetarians are strict vegetarians. Many do eat fish or white meat like chicken. This is also the case of Hindus and hard-core Buddhists. In fact, apart from animal lovers who attach nearly as much importance to a chicken's life as to a human one, there aren't many true vegetarians.

Strict vegetarianism amuses me because most of its followers have never asked themselves where is the limit between plants and animals. It isn't as easy as one thinks. If an animal is a life being with a brain, then clearly scallops or jellyfish aren't animals. The reason animal lovers refrain from killing animal for food is to avoid causing them suffering. It isn't about the sanctity of life itself. Plants are just as alive as animals. So if suffering is the factor, why not eat primitive animals that lack a pain centre in their brain, like most mollusks, crustaceans or even fish ?

Being a true vegetarian isn't the same as being a vegan. Veganism is the more extreme approach, which prohibits the consumption of any animal product at all, even milk and eggs. I cannot help but see it as a caprice rather than a reasonable life-style choice, since it is not healthy for human to live with low protein diets or avoid any animal products. If someone doesn't eat meat then they should eat a lot of dairy products, eggs, beans, etc. to compensate.

The vegetarians' argument for their choice of diet is that eating too much meat leads to high cholesterol and cardio-vascular problems and cancer, the two biggest killers in post-industrial societies. In my eyes, fear is what motivates a lot of Westerners to cut down on meat consumption. It seems like a reasonable, even rational way of life. But is it really justified ? Are vegetarians healthier than people who have a balanced diet including meat and fish ?

Western vegetarianism started around the same time as the hippie and environmental movements in the 1970's. It is in Northern European countries, as well as the North-East and West coasts of the USA that these movements have truly flourished. The most fertile ground for vegetarianism in the developed world is without a doubt the UK. Surveys estimate that between 7% and 11% of the British people are vegetarian, and an additional 23% are 'meat-reducers'. But did this confer an advantage to Britons in term of life expectancy, compared to heavy meat and fish eaters like the French or the Japanese ? The answer is a resounding 'no'. The French have the highest life expectancy in Europe, and the Japanese the highest in the world (well, actually after Macau and Hong Kong, two other meat-addict cultures). British people live on average 2 years shorter than French people, and 3 years less than the Japanese.

I will attempt to find an explanation as to why eating a variety of meat, fish and seafood is healthier than not eating any or not much.

Our ancestors were primarily hunters (rather than gatherers) for almost as long they they walked up straight. Cro-Magnons painted hunting scenes (bisons, horses, deer...) not gathering scenes. They were meat eaters, who complemented their diet with the occasional fruits in season.

Let's not forget two essential differences between the Ice Age (which had alreday started when Homo Sapiens appeared 100,000 years ago and ended only 10,000 years ago) and now :

1) big mammals were much more common during the Ice Age than now. Many of these species are now extinct, like the mammoth, the auroch or the tarpan. Gazelles, elephants, lions and other animals now confined to sub-Saharan Africa could be found in the Middle East, North Africa and southern Europe even after the Ice Age, until the antiquity. Bears and wolves were quite common until a few centuries ago because there was enough game to feed them. During the Ice Age, humans would have been just one of the carnivorous predators among a plenitude of big game. It was a very different world.

2) Most fruits and vegetables that are now common in our diet either did not exist yet, or were confined to a small region of the world. Before the widespread use of agriculture a few thousands years ago, cereals and vegetables were virtually absent from human diet. Many were developed through cross-breeding and selective breeding, like most cabbages and cereals.

We now eat bananas, mangos, lychees or Sharon fruits as if they had always been there, but only a few decades ago such tropical fruits were almost impossible to find in Europe. Many people assume that apples, pears, peaches, oranges, plums or cherries are the true native fruits of Europe that Cro-Magnons could have picked up in trees when they were hungry. Too bad, there weren't any for most of them. Apples and cherries both originated in Anatolia, and were not widespread around Europe until Roman times. Peaches and apricots both originated in China, while oranges came from Southeast Asia. They only reached Europe in historical times. As for pears and plums, the varieties we know today are recent artificially cross-bred species. Gages for example were developed from a tiny wild plum in 16th-century France.

The only fruits that prehistoric Europeans would have eaten are nuts and berries (though not the huge modern strawberries but the wild variety no larger than a raspberry). In winter, their diet would have been almost exclusively meat.

Our bodies are not designed by evolution to eat the fruits, cereals and vegetables we eat nowadays. We are carnivores who became omnivorous due to the recent invention of agriculture, and the even more recent spread of fruit and vegetable varieties across continents. Many human allergies are caused by plants, pollens, cereals (gluten allergy) and fruits (e.g. peanut allergy), not meat (except some seafood, which our ancestors didn't eat).

One clear proof that humans need meat is that pregnant women have strong cravings for meat, even if they have been vegetarians for years. A foetus, or indeed a child, just cannot grow healthily without meat or fish. Children deprived of meat or fish, due to a vegetarian upbringing or due to poverty do not grow as tall and healthy as those who eat meat regularly.

So, is vegetarianim good or dangerous ? It is certainly not recommended for pregnant women and children. Exchanging meat for fish may have benefits for older people who are at risk for cardio-vascular diseases, but that is not vegetarianism.