At the bottom of Mexican and Peruvian colonial societies were the indigenous peoples, known to Europeans as “Indians.”
It is shocking to me that even this long ago that Indians were seen as people in the bottom class, especially considering that they largely remained in the bottom even after the United States became a country.
European innovations in mapmaking, navigation, sailing techniques, and ship design — building on earlier models from the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and Chinese regions — likewise enabled Europeans to penetrate the Atlantic Ocean.
One of the earliest themes that I have discovered early on in this course is the power behind mapmakers and how important mapmaking was throughout history.
Indeed, empire building has been largely discredited during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and “imperialist” has become a term of insult rather than a source of pride.
I have always found it interesting that historians tend to praise some leaders of the older empires such as Alexander the Great or Julius Cesar, but don't feel nearly as fond about recent leaders who have attempted to create an empire such as Hirohito or others who have attempted to do so.
Was it because large areas of Australia were unsuited for the kind of agriculture practiced in New Guinea? Or did the peoples of Australia, enjoying an environment of sufficient resources, simply see no need to change their way of life?
It seems as if neither are really true. According to the Australian government’s agriculture website, as of 2025 55% of Australian land is used for agricultural purposes. While they might have had sufficient resources that could deter their need to start aggressively pursuing agriculture, their tendency to assimilate with other cultures over the course of a few millennia indicates that they slowly developed their agricultural habits over time, rather than overhauling society overnight to adapt to how the people of New Guinea lived