Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I think what you're getting at is genocide? The main difference between Tenochtitlan and Manhattan would be the complete erasure of indigenous, right? The island still retains the name given to it by the Lenape tribes that occupied it pre-colonial era, and it has been continuously inhabited. Broadway originated as a trail connecting the pre-colonial villages.
|
No, Mexico City was quite literally built on the ruins of the city the Spanish had just conquered. It's early inhabitants as well were a mix of Spaniards and Aztecs (obviously the latter being a largely subservient class). Tenochtitlan became Mexico City.
New Amsterdam was a brand new city built around a fort, populated by European settlers. That there were Lenape towns nearby (which I believe would have all been vacated upon the Dutch purchase of the island?) does not make them the precursor to New York City. Pretty well all of the populated regions of North America have been continually inhabited for tens of thousands of years, and having modern roads taking the route of indigenous trails & trading routes are not an uncommon feature in our cities. That however, is still a separate thing from when the actual present-day
cities were founded.
It's no different from the cities of antiquity we're talking about here. The Damascus region for example had been inhabited for thousands of years before the city was founded sometime around 2000 BCE. But we consider the continuous timeline of the city as having began 4000-5000 years ago; not upon the arrival of agricultural settlements to its general vicinity 11,000 years ago.