I enjoyed this book very much. For me, most the nonfiction books we've read over the past year have petered out towards the end, the authors having said what they had to say in earlier chapters. But this book kept me interested until the very end. I even read the appendices. I am still left with many questions and want to learn more.
- The author criticizes scholars who learned a few facts and then rewrote history around those few facts, but the author himself seems to be guilty of same fallacy. Did anyone else notice this? How should we determine what goes into history textbooks?
- The author cites those who think a revaluation of societies in the Americas before Columbus will have contemporary political or social consequences. Do you think this is true? Why or why not? If we learned with certainty that societies in North America were more elaborate and complex than previously assumed would that change the way we treat Native Americans in the United States? What about Amazonia? If we learned with certainty that Amazonia forest had been agriculturally engineered for centuries would that change our current attitudes about how to utilize it?
- The last sentence of Part Two reads: “The natural world is incomplete without the human touch.” This thought is contrary to what many consider the meaning of the words “natural world.” What do you think he means and why do think he closed the chapter with that sentence?
- Some Native Americans reject archeological explanations of human colonization of the Americas in favor of their traditional explanations. Were you surprised to learn that? What role, if any, should Native American traditions play when determining the historical record?
- The renegade expedition down the Amazon by Francisco de Orellana and Gaspar de Carvajal which Mann writes about in chapter nine was fictionalized by Werner Herzog in the film Aguirre: The Wrath of God. Carvajal’s diary was merely the inspiration for the film and Herzog takes many liberties, but it’s a personal favorite so I just wanted to throw that in there.
We'll be meeting to discuss this book on November 12th at the Main Library in Conference Rm 3 at noon. Feel free to bring a lunch.
- The author criticizes scholars who learned a few facts and then rewrote history around those few facts, but the author himself seems to be guilty of same fallacy. Did anyone else notice this? How should we determine what goes into history textbooks?
- The author cites those who think a revaluation of societies in the Americas before Columbus will have contemporary political or social consequences. Do you think this is true? Why or why not? If we learned with certainty that societies in North America were more elaborate and complex than previously assumed would that change the way we treat Native Americans in the United States? What about Amazonia? If we learned with certainty that Amazonia forest had been agriculturally engineered for centuries would that change our current attitudes about how to utilize it?
- The last sentence of Part Two reads: “The natural world is incomplete without the human touch.” This thought is contrary to what many consider the meaning of the words “natural world.” What do you think he means and why do think he closed the chapter with that sentence?
- Some Native Americans reject archeological explanations of human colonization of the Americas in favor of their traditional explanations. Were you surprised to learn that? What role, if any, should Native American traditions play when determining the historical record?
- The renegade expedition down the Amazon by Francisco de Orellana and Gaspar de Carvajal which Mann writes about in chapter nine was fictionalized by Werner Herzog in the film Aguirre: The Wrath of God. Carvajal’s diary was merely the inspiration for the film and Herzog takes many liberties, but it’s a personal favorite so I just wanted to throw that in there.
We'll be meeting to discuss this book on November 12th at the Main Library in Conference Rm 3 at noon. Feel free to bring a lunch.
