> That “someone is wrong” link[3] is an introduction (nine-part series) where the introduction polemically critiques Terminal Narrative. I read these posts yea

> That “someone is wrong” link[3] is an introduction (nine-part series) where the introduction polemically critiques Terminal Narrative. I read these posts years ago and they are even worse than I remember them being. If these rebellions could have occurred without the Spanish, they would have. The whole motivation behind the post is silly, too: > The Terminal Narrative […] replaces discussion of agency and autonomy with notions of superiority or condescending pity for a people vanishing from the earth. His belief in agency never made any sense to me; how is it possible for a chain of historical events to have occurred differently from how they did? When did the laws of physics change? The central question is whether or not the Iberians had some quality about them that allowed them to win. It’s conceivable (albeit unlikely) that they simply won as the result of a series of historical accidents; one is then left to wonder why it was the Iberians who came out on top of the coincidence each and every time. In this narrative, we have to assume they just arrived in the right place and the right time, all over South America, and then just happened (through sheer dumb luck) to be the ones who ended up in power afterwards. The simpler explanation is that the Spaniards had better models than the people they conquered.