Regardless of whether gameday brings victory or defeat for your favorite team, the food should be a winner. That's why you should include this snack combo.

from World Alternative Media: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: Chicago’s money trees are shedding their autumn layers with a new multi-million dollar government payout package for underfunded public pensions. City officials approved a short-term bailout of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund to the tune of $28 million to avoid forced asset sales. That is merely the tip of […]

Clingy Dog Won't Let His Mom Get A Workout In | The Dodo

  Europe has been in a constant state of conflict and disarray since its first states began to form. These conflicts have all required negotiations and the signing of peace treaties. These were laborious and intense processes that required years of debate between the great powers of Europe. When completed, each of the following European treaties would drastically reshape the outlook of the continent and initiate the ascendancy of a new dominant power over the continent.   1. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) as a Key European Treaty The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, by Gerard Ter Borch, 1648. Source: Everything Peace of Westphalia / Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam   As one of the first examples of large-scale multi-nation diplomacy, the two European treaties that made up the Peace of Westphalia signified the end of the Thirty Years’ War.   Within the context of the advent of Protestantism, the Thirty Years’ War was primarily a religious civil war within the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which gradually expanded into a struggle for dominance over Europe. The Peace of Prague (1635) ended the religious aspect of the conflict and united most of the HRE, allying with the Habsburg dynasty of Spain against the Bourbon dynasty of France, backed by Sweden and the Dutch Republic.   A preliminary peace agreement was signed in December 1641, allowing the powers to gather to negotiate. The Peace of Westphalia was actually a combination of two peace treaties, one signed at Osnabrück and one in Münster. At the time, Münster was an exclusively Catholic city, which made it an easy spot for Catholic French dignitaries to travel to negotiate with the HRE. Conversely, Protestant Swedish dignitaries chose Osnabrück as it was a mix of Catholics and Lutherans, more likely to avoid religious confrontation.   The 109 delegations that arrived between 1643 and 1647 never met in a single session. The primary focus of the negotiations was the Holy Roman Empire and who would hold power—the Emperor, at the time Ferdinand III, or the Imperial estates themselves.   Map of Europe after the Peace of Westphalia, by William R. Shepherd. Source: University of Texas / Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection   The product of the treaties increased the influence of the princely states. Three hundred princes gained more sovereignty for themselves, but Ferdinand did maintain central power through the Imperial Diet. An important section of the treaties confirmed the 1555 Peace of Augsburg which guaranteed the right to practice one of the three recognized religions: Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism. These three groups would receive equal representation in court as well. This was (at least temporarily) a pause in the religious conflict which had engulfed the continent for centuries.   The Peace of Westphalia also resolved some territorial disputes. France solidified and strengthened its borders, gaining territory within Germany. Sweden also gained provinces, a say in the politics of the Holy Roman Empire, and war reparations. Although not part of the Westphalian agreement itself, the Dutch Republic and Swiss Confederation signed separate treaties recognizing their legitimacy as states.   The reception of the peace was mixed. Pope Innocent X rallied against it as it permitted deviation from Catholic doctrine. Although it helped resolve religious tension, particularly within the Holy Roman Empire, and minor disputes between powers, the two treaties did not end the fighting between states. A primary reason for this was the ascension of France. Indeed, the agreements at Westphalia laid the ground for Louis XIV to dominate European politics over the next few decades. Known as the “Sun King,” he would heavily involve France in European wars, particularly with Spain but eventually all of Europe in the Nine Years’ War.   Recently, historians have debated the legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. They challenge the notion that the treaties were an example of international relations and recognizing many of the democratic norms we witness today, like the primacy of borders.   2. Treaty of Paris (1763) The death of General Wolfe at Quebec, after the painting by Benjamin West. Source: National Army Museum, London   If Westphalia began French dominance over Europe, the Treaty of Paris was the European treaty that led to British dominance over the rest of the world. The agreement was signed to end the Seven Years’ War, which could be considered the first “world” war. The conflict was a combination of the French-Indian War, the Spanish-Portuguese War, the Third Silesian War, and the Anglo-Spanish War.   The war began over a dispute between the British and French over their colonies in North America. Fighting soon expanded across the globe, and the British, Portuguese, and Prussians eventually prevailed.   When it came to negotiating the peace, the negotiators were divided. On one side were Britain and Portugal, who had managed to fend off challenges from the other great powers, Spain and France. Prussia and Austria signed a separate peace treaty, the Treaty of Hubertusburg.   Britain and France gave back what they had conquered throughout the war, except for territories in North America, where Britain asserted its influence, taking much of Canada and Louisiana from the French and Florida from the Spanish. This settlement, however, was criticized by many in Britain, who felt that the peace could have been much more punitive.   Map of North America after the Treaty of Paris 1763. Source: Lo Que Pasó en la Historia   The fallout from the Seven Years’ War would assert Britain—and Prussia—as the rising European powers. Britain, in particular, strengthened its grip on North America, India, and eventually Australia. However, perhaps the most significant effect of the Treaty of Paris on Europe’s history did not actually come from the continent itself. The enormous cost of the war meant that Britain now had to demand taxes from its colonies in an attempt to recoup its lost revenue.   Attempts to collect funds for the war angered many colonists, particularly in North America. Just ten years later, they rebelled against the British. After another ten years, many signatories of the first Treaty of Paris would be back to sign another agreement. This time it was to confirm the independence of the United States of America.   3. Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) The Congress of Vienna, by Jean-Baptiste Isabey. Source: Historia Mundum   The general peace from the Treaty of Paris lasted only thirty years, and the Napoleonic Wars would soon envelop Europe for two decades, requiring another major European treaty. Unlike in their previous conflict, where Britain and France fought across the globe, most of the fighting was focused in mainland Europe.   Right after their first victory in 1814, the victorious major powers (Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia) gathered in Vienna to decide how to deal with the impacts of the French Revolution and Napoleon’s grand rise and fall from power. They would stay negotiating in Vienna for a year, concluding their agreement just before Napoleon surrendered for a second time.   The treaty mainly was a restoration of the land France had conquered, with each of the major kingdoms seizing some land for their own. Britain expanded its colonial holdings, Prussia took Saxony, Austria claimed Northern Italy, and Russia annexed Poland. The Congress also established the German Confederation, of which Prussia and Austria were a part, as a buffer to prevent future French aggressions. The confederation formed the basis of what Otto Bismarck would unite to form Germany in 1870. Another buffer, this time between the German Confederation and France, was established in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.   Map of Europe after the Congress of Vienna. Source: University of Wisconsin   A standout of the Congress was French Prime Minister Talleyrand. In a hopeless position, at the mercy of the coalition formed against it, Talleyrand managed to play the great powers off each other throughout the negotiations. Initially excluded from proceedings, he included himself in the final settlement, minimizing the damage inflicted upon France.   The biggest victor of the Congress of Vienna was Britain, which emerged poised to dominate the international order. It had eliminated its greatest rival and could now focus on further colonial domination, expanding its reach across the globe.   The legacy of the congress itself is disputed. On the one hand, it is pictured as a conservative backlash against the American and French Revolutions. Democratic and liberal movements were suppressed as the monarchies of Europe reasserted their dominance. Nationalist forces within their empires were also restricted. However, the resulting broad international peace would remain in place for a century, making this arguably the most successful treaty on this list.   4. Berlin Conference (1884-1885) The division of Africa by the European powers. Source: Stanford Report / Ourworldindata.org   As a result of the Congress of Vienna, Europe experienced relative peace throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. Secure in their borders, major powers soon turned their attention back to their colonial holdings and potential avenues for expansion, with all eyes on Africa. The existing colonizing powers gathered in Berlin between 1884 and 1885 to codify the conquest of Africa that would take place over the next 20 years, commonly known as the Scramble for Africa.   The agreement that was finally reached, the General Act of Berlin, had the dual effect of legitimizing previous colonial efforts and indicating how future colonization would take place in Africa. Previously, all major European powers had launched expeditions into the African continent, looking to claim whatever land they could. To avoid another European war, the Berlin Conference laid out the rules for future conquests. All other signatories would be notified if any new African land was claimed, and the process for legitimizing these claims was written into law.   A political cartoon showing Africa being divided up among many European powers at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85. Source: PBS Learning Media   Since this did not wholly prevent crises, a few flashpoints occurred between the major powers. The first was the showdown between the British and the French at Fashoda. The second was the Agadir Crisis, where Germany and France came close to sparking an international conflict. Like many issues regarding African colonies, these were soon resolved by separate treaties between the powers.   The Berlin Conference also succeeded in its goal of legitimizing the conquest of Africa in the eyes of the European public. Faint overtures were made to the supposed humanitarian mission that disguised the true goal of expansion and exploitation, the colonial powers claiming they aimed to eradicate slavery from the continent.   The result on Africa itself would be devastating, the full scope of which is too broad for this article. The worst immediate effect was that it approved Belgian control over the Congo Free State (now Democratic Republic of the Congo). This was a scam run by Leopold II, who would plunder the region for his own gain over the next decade, imposing brutal conditions on the Congolese.   For Europe itself, the Congress would start a hyper-competition between the powers. Rivalry between the colonial states would lead to increased confrontation and brinksmanship across Europe, adding extra tinder to the powder keg that would eventually erupt into World War I.   5. The Treaty of Versailles (1919): The European Treaty That Ended WWI The Signing of the Treaty of Versailles, by Joseph Finnemore, 1919. Source: National Museum Australia   Perhaps the most famous European treaty on this list, the Treaty of Versailles is certainly the most impactful of the 20th century. The agreement was signed exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which had sparked World War I.   Named after the famous palace of the Bourbon kings, most discussions took place in Paris, with only the signing taking place in the Palace of Versailles. The result was heavily divisive, both for the victorious and defeated powers.   The treaty focused on punishing Germany severely. The “Big Four” dictated terms to the defeated powers excluded from the conference. Germany was forced to disarm, lose its empire, pay heavy reparations, cede some of its European territory, and accept sole responsibility for the war. Similar treatment was given to Austro-Hungary, which saw its empire completely disbanded.   The “Big Four” at the Paris Peace Conference, (left to right): David Lloyd George (Great Britain), Vittorio Orlando (Italy), Georges Clemenceau (France), and Woodrow Wilson (U.S.), photo by Edward N. Jackson, May 27, 1919. Source: Wikimedia Commons / US Signal Corps   The horrors of war had left all participants looking to create a system that would prevent a similar war from happening again. This system came in the form of the League of Nations, the first real attempt at an international organization devoted to diplomatic mediation.   The Treaty of Versailles also established some brand new states in an effort to promote self-determination: Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia were the most notable. In a cruel twist of fate, these newly created national entities would be the flashpoints of conflict over the next two decades and beyond.   The terms of the treaty themselves would soon lead to the rise of the Nazis and eventually World War II. Although historians endlessly debate whether Versailles is a direct link to Germany’s invasion of Poland, it is undeniable that Adolf Hitler’s rise to power was centered on the systematic overturning of Versailles. He used the “stab in the back” myth to remilitarize the Rhineland, rearm Germany, and unite with Austria, all forbidden by the terms of the treaty.   The impact of the Treaty of Versailles has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Debates focus on whether it was too punitive on Germany and whether it created the issues that would plague the continent, and the world, for the rest of the century.   Honorable Mentions The Treaty of Tordesillas, photograph by Jl FilpoC, 2019. Source: Wikimedia Commons   These are some treaties which were devised by European powers, but didn’t have the direct effect on Europe as a whole, like the five listed above:   Treaty of Nanjing (1842): Outlined the abuse of China/the Far East by European Powers. Forced China to trade on unequal terms with the great powers, particularly Britain, which exploited China’s population and resources. Treaty of Sèvres (1920): Divided up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire—the random division of territories still impacts the region today. The Treaty of Sèvres was never ratified but began the process of dissolving the Ottoman Empire that was codified in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Britain and France would gain much of the Ottoman territory which they quickly abandoned following the Second World War. Treaty of Verdun (843): Divided the Carolingian Kingdom between the three sons of Louis the Pious and shaped the medieval states that would rise in the following centuries. The three kingdoms that emerged would come to form modern-day France, Germany, and the Low Countries/Switzerland/Italy respectively. Treaty of Tordesillas (1494): Divided the colonial world between Spain and Portugal. Portugal would be free to expand its lucrative colony of Brazil and small trading ports in the Indian Ocean. Spain received the rest of South and Central America.

  As a nomadic people with Central Asian roots, the medieval Ottomans made effective use of the bow, arrow, and sword in warfare. These tools helped them to quickly raid and conquer parts of Europe and Asia. However, in the Early Modern Era, as the Ottomans turned towards larger, fortified cities and towns, they needed to adapt to more destructive and impactful weaponry like guns and cannons.   Nomadic Warfare Nomadic soldiers using bows and arrows, from Jami-al-Tawarikh, by Rashid-al-Din, ca. 1430s. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Ottoman Dynasty emerged in the early 1300s in Western Anatolia (Turkey). Formed mainly by Turkmen, a nomadic Turkic people originating from the Central Asian Steppe, the principality was formed and ruled by a pastoralist chieftain named Osman. Osman was adept in the use of the bow, arrow, and horse, all tools that were instrumental in the rise of nomadic empires like that of the Chingissid Mongols (13th century) or Timurids (14th century).   Nomadic warriors called horse archers were the foundation of the early Ottoman military. They were expert archers who would ride at fast speeds, swiftly attacking the enemy and then retreating. These warriors often relied on warfare and raids to obtain goods, such as precious metals and agricultural products, that their pastoralist lifestyle did not produce. These militarized Turkmen were accustomed to the volatility of the steppe, where looting and raiding were commonplace. Osman and his son (and successor) Orhan soon realized that to establish an orderly state in the mainly sedentary and Christian land of Anatolia, they would need a force that counteracted these nomadic warriors.   During his reign, Orhan (r. 1323-1362) established a standing army of infantry (yaya) and cavalry (müsellem). These paid soldiers were Christians from Balkan territories that the Ottomans were beginning to expand into. During the reign of Orhan’s son, Murad I, this force had grown and become too expensive to maintain. Armed troops required salaries and were paid in land grants (fiefdoms), where they began to form local power bases. One way of combatting this power was by creating an army of slave soldiers who were solely loyal to the sultan: the Janissaries.   The Janissaries Two janissaries of different rank, by Lambert Wyts, 1573. Source: Wikimedia Commons   According to Islamic law, the victors of war are entitled to one-fifth of the war booty. During the reign of Orhan in the mid-14th century, prisoners taken during military campaigns were considered part of this war booty. By the reign of Sultan Murad in 1360, the Ottomans had developed this into the devshirme system, where Balkan Christian boys were taken as slaves and raised in the court, either as janissaries or as statesmen. This “child levy,” first mentioned in 1483 (although implemented earlier), was a form of tax that Christian populations had to pay for living peacefully under Ottoman rule.   The children were converted to Islam and received a military education in the palace. Those who were exceptionally talented were sent to the Enderun, the palace school where future statesmen and princes were educated. As one of the first standing armies to receive a regular paid salary and reside in barracks, the janissaries became a strong and united force. Unlike the nomadic warriors that the Ottomans had relied on in the past, the janissaries did not have clan or familial loyalties. They were kapikulu, or slaves of the sultan, and owed their fealty to his person.   The Janissaries were an early form of the modern standing army. They wore distinctive uniforms and caps—called börks—and marched to the mehter, or military band music. The corps was organized into several battalions, called ortas. At the time of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, there were an estimated 165 Janissary battalions in the empire. These battalions had different functions: some were the sultan’s bodyguards, and others were infantry or cavalry troops.   Mehmed’s Dream The Conquest of Constantinople, by Fausto Zonaro, 1903. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In contrast to empires like the Timurids and Akkoyunlu, or the other Turkish principalities who rivaled them, the Ottomans were quick to adapt to new military technologies. This became glaringly obvious to European powers during the conquest of Constantinople—the Byzantine capital city—by the 21-year-old Sultan Mehmed II in 1453.   Conquering the city was something of an obsession for the young sultan. Though many before him—such as his great-grandfather Bayezid I—had tried, capturing the city was a difficult feat. Constantinople’s outer fortifications could not be breached by gunfire, let alone the bows and arrows that the Turks had traditionally relied on. Mehmed knew that he would have to develop a weapon strong enough to damage the defensive Theodosian Walls which consisted of inner and outer walls several meters thick.   In the spring of 1453, Mehmed deployed both a naval and land force to besiege the city. His fleet of over 100 ships consisted of small and large galleys, rowboats, and ships to transport horses. However, large chains blocked passage through the Bosphorus, the strait that connected the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara and separated Asian Anatolia from the European landmass. Mehmed subsequently ordered his lighter galleys to be dragged overland and into the northern part of the Golden Horn, an inlet that flowed into the Bosphorus.   When the Turks reached the vicinity of Constantinople’s walls, they used colossal canons to breach the walls. However, it was one cannon, built by the Hungarian engineer Orban, that was exceptional for its time. Orban’s cannon was capable of firing a 270 kg (42 stone) stone ball over a 1.6-kilometer (0.9 miles) distance. Unlike previous armies that had tried to conquer Constantinople, the Ottomans’ effective use of gunpowder artillery helped them breach the walls that had protected the city for a millennium.   A Gunpowder Empire Canons and muskets used at the Siege of Esztergom (1543), by Sebastian Vrancx, c. 17th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Coined by historians Marshall G.S. Hodgson and William H. McNeill, the term “gunpowder empire” refers to three early modern Islamic empires—the Ottomans, Safavids (Persia), and Mughals (India)—whose military strength depended upon gunpowder artillery. These empires all had nomadic Central Asian roots and were characterized by their effective use of Chinese gunpowder which allowed them to conquer and dominate vast regions.   In the late 15th and early 16th century, the Ottomans began to incorporate smaller gunpowder weaponry into their arsenal. Sources suggest that the Turks used muskets very similar to Spanish ones. One possible cause of this was the Spanish Reconquista and the expulsion of non-Christians in 1492. Jewish and Muslim refugees migrated from Spain to the Ottoman Empire, where they began to practice their trades and crafts.   While the use of gunpowder was restricted mostly to large cannons in the late 1400s, during the reign of Suleyman (r. 1520-1566), janissary troops had begun to use early muskets. Sultan Murad III (r. 1575-95) went on to equip his entire janissary corps with matchlock muskets. This was an improvement from small handheld canons that required soldiers to manually light a flame to the gunpowder.   The more advanced muskets consisted of a slow-burning piece of string that could be brought into contact with gunpowder through the pulling of a lever. The Ottomans also developed the technique of using these muskets during volley fire, a technique that consisted of lined-up troops who would shoot en masse in the same direction.   With the help of these gunpowder weapons, the Ottomans reached the zenith of their military power and territorial size in the 16th century. By the end of Suleyman’s reign in the 1560s, the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents, stretching from Algiers (Algeria) to Buda (Hungary) to Baghdad (Iraq).   Naval Power and Piracy Ottoman fleets at the Battle of Lepanto, 1571. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Ottoman Navy had existed from at least the mid-1300s. During these early years, it was instrumental in sieges and in the conquests of Mediterranean islands and Black Sea coastlands. It was also used in major conquests, like that of Constantinople in 1453 and Trebizond, the last Byzantine territory, in 1461.   Contemporary naval powers, like Portugal, Spain, and Venice, frequently battled the Ottomans for supremacy in the Mediterranean and Levant. Often, European ports in the Arabian peninsula—like Yemen and Oman—were besieged and conquered by the Ottomans; other campaigns, such as those in the Persian Gulf were less successful.   The height of Ottoman power in the seas was during Suleyman’s reign when the famous pirate-turned-admiral Barbaros Hayrettin Pasha (called Barbarossa in the West) secured supremacy over the Italians in the North African Mediterranean region. However, at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, the Ottoman navy suffered major losses and was almost destroyed.   By the 1620s and 30s, the Ottomans had rebuilt their navy and even established a presence in the Atlantic Ocean. The Isle of Lundy, in the Bristol Channel, was captured under the command of the corsair Murat Reis in 1627. The Corsairs recognized the Ottomans as their overlords and allowed them to use the island as a naval base for five years.   Ottoman Losses and Decline Ottoman-Hapsburg War of 1565-1568. Source: Wikimedia Commons   By the late-16th century, the weaknesses in Ottoman military capacity were becoming evident. The Ottomans had lost part of Hungary and Romania to the Hapsburgs in the 1590s. A few decades earlier an alliance of Christian states had defeated the Ottoman navy at the Battle of Lepanto (1571), which played out near Southwestern Greece. However, despite these setbacks, the Ottomans were able to recoup and went on to conquer Tunis (1574), Morocco (1578), and Crete (1669).   Further military decline occurred in the 17th century with the rampant corruption in the janissary corps. These elite soldiers began not only to influence but also dominate the trajectory of internal politics. They deposed and assassinated the reformist sultan Osman II in 1622 when he vowed to tighten restrictions on the armed forces. Likewise, the janissaries played a part in the 1651 murder of Kösem Sultan, the immensely powerful former regent and queen mother.   In addition to this, the rise of powers like Russia, France, and England in the 18th century, along with the Ottomans’ inability to adapt to technologies like the bayonet, eventually led to the decline in the military might of the empire.

  For thousands of years, traditional farming and agroforestry have been the backbone of sustenance, economy, and social structure in Mexico. The significance of these practices runs far deeper than food production: they are avenues of cultural communion with the land and offer a window of insight into the ancestral, land-based cosmologies of the region. As these practices gain modern recognition for their sustainability and resilience, the vibrant belief systems that uphold them—rooted in principles like reciprocity and balance—are also experiencing a revival.   1. The Milpa Cycle: Polyculture in Action The milpa trilogy: corn, beans, and squash, Marigel Campos Capetillo. Source: FAO.   The Mayan milpa cycle, or “Ich Kool” in the Yucatec Maya language, has been at the heart of Indigenous Mesoamerican cultures since ancient times. This land-based practice was the very foundation of all ancient societies in the region, which spans across southern Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, and western Honduras and Nicaragua.   For at least 3,500 years, traditional milpas have nurtured and sustained the cultural identity, ecosystems, and cosmovisions of regional culture. They remain the lifeblood of many communities throughout the Mayan Peninsula to this day, and continue to evolve as a living biocultural tradition that connects land and people.   At the core of milpa systems is the idea of polyculture. Unlike typical Western farming practices, which use large fields to grow a single crop, milpas consist of small plots of land that are each home to a wide variety of plant species. This diversity creates its own self-sustaining ecosystem, which integrates more seamlessly into the surrounding forest landscapes.   Milpa crops vary but traditionally begin as a combination of corn, beans, and squash. Because of this flexibility, they can incorporate a variety of other local plants—such as amaranth, tomatoes, chiles, and medicinal plants and herbs—depending on the preferences and conditions of the communities they serve.   A milpa-grown ear of maize, Cristian Reyna, 2021. Source: CIMMYT   The traditional milpa cycle unfolds over the course of two decades and passes through four distinct stages. First, a forested plot is cleared in preparation for planting. This is done through the traditional slash-and-burn method, which adds vital minerals and nutrients to the earth. The primary crops—corn, beans, and squash—are the first to be planted, along with a dynamic lower canopy (including herbs, tubers, and even common weeds), which further enhances the fertility of the soil.   In the second stage, fast-growing fruit trees, like papaya, banana, and plantain, are introduced to the milpa. They provide shade for other seedlings, such as avocado, mango, and allspice. These trees grow into maturity in the third stage of the cycle, creating a canopy that eventually phases out crops like corn, beans, and squash, introducing hardwoods like cedar and mahogany in their place. Finally, the plot is transformed back into a closed canopy hardwood forest, which is allowed time to regenerate before beginning the next cycle anew.   Farmer tending to a milpa plot, 2010. Source: Mesoamerican Research Center   The result is a mosaic-style rotation of constantly transforming fields and forests. The milpa reflects a system of deep interrelationship, honoring the delicate balance between natural environments and the needs of their surrounding communities. This emphasis on interdependence is just as essential to local culture as the agricultural practices themselves and reinforces sociocultural systems based on mutual support and cooperation.   Over time, milpa agriculture has come to face many of the same challenges as other traditional knowledge systems, including shifting social, economic, and environmental realities. Across Mexico, farmers face increasing financial pressures to abandon traditional subsistence farming in favor of commercial agriculture. Deforestation and land conversion further reduce the availability of forested areas suitable for traditional farming practices.   Yet milpas have also experienced a promising resurgence in recent years. Through education initiatives, fostering community involvement and integrating modern sustainable techniques.   These efforts are beginning to be recognized: in 2023, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) recognized the milpa as a globally important agricultural heritage system.   Although the milpa system is designed to mimic local Maya forest ecosystems, its basic principles can be applied to different habitats, showcasing its adaptability and relevance in diverse contexts.   2. Chinampas: Floating Farms A chinampa on Lake Xochimilco, 2024. Source: El País   Chinampas, also known as “floating gardens” or “floating islands,” have a long history among the Indigenous cultures of the Valley of Mexico. Their legacy endures in modern day Mexico City, where chinampa farms are still found within the canal networks of Xochimilco, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. While these floating gardens may be better known for their colorful gondola boats and tourist attractions today, Xochimilco’s extensive ecological reserves are the center of an ongoing movement to revive traditional chinampa culture.   Chinampas are small, man-made islands built from layers of fertile organic matter taken from the lakebed. The technique was first developed by the Xochimilca, an Indigenous people who settled in the Valley of Mexico prior to the rise of the Aztec Empire and was later adopted and expanded upon by the Aztec. Before the arrival of Spanish colonizers in 1519, these wetland gardens produced enough food to feed the entire ancient capital of Tenochtitlan—the largest city in the Western Hemisphere at the time.   When the Spanish arrived, however, they drained many of the lakes and outlawed the cultivation of Indigenous crops. Chinampas were replaced with dryland agriculture, upon which the Spanish ordered European crops to be planted. Since then, chinampa farming has continued to steadily diminish as a result of urban expansion, pollution, and a broader shift towards globalized food chains.   Chinampa farmers in the Xochimilco canals, César Rodríguez, 2022. Source: National Geographic   Yet, against all odds, some chinampas have persisted as a lasting reminder of these impressive pre-Columbian land practices. Today, some 5,000 acres of floating gardens can still be found in Xochimilco’s nature preserves. Only a small fraction of this land is used for traditional chinampa farming, however, many have been abandoned and left empty, while others have been repurposed for conventional farming.   The few chinamperos (chinampa farmers) who continue to uphold these ancestral methods are committed to revitalizing them. Particularly since the recent coronavirus pandemic, there has been a growing movement among farmers and researchers to highlight the significance of chinampas to Mexican culture and ecology. After all, they offer valuable solutions for contemporary climate challenges, providing an oasis for urban wildlife species like the critically endangered axolotl while simultaneously preserving Mexico’s vibrant cultural heritage. What’s more, they have the potential to improve local food security.   This last point was underscored during the COVID lockdown, which disrupted the supply of international produce to Mexico City. Suddenly, the importance of resilient, self-sustaining local food systems was made glaringly evident. As the reliability of industrial food systems wavered, restaurants throughout Mexico City turned to local chinampa farmers to source their fresh produce.   These circumstances helped to fuel an already-bubbling resurgence in awareness surrounding chinampa practices, sparking interest in and demand for chinampa-grown produce. Today, visitors to Xochimilco’s renowned canal gardens can support ongoing efforts by choosing from a number of guided chinampa tours.   3. Mixteca Terrace Farming: Maximizing Land Use Detail from the Codex Zouche-Nuttall, 14th century CE. Source: UNESCO   In the Mixteca Alta region of southern Mexico, there has been a similar growing appreciation for ancestral terrace farming techniques.   Mixteca terrace farming is believed to have started as early as 300 BCE and was first developed by the Mixtec people of present-day western Oaxaca and eastern Guerrero. The practice has been a cornerstone of regional culture ever since. It involves the construction of stepped terraces along the slopes of hills and mountains, which are then cultivated and used to grow crops. The method helps to conserve water and soil while maximizing land use and also helps to prevent erosion.   For Mixteca communities with little access to flat, fertile land, this technique has been vitally important throughout history. Highly productive and long-lasting, terrace farms have been closely linked to the development of Mixtec societies for thousands of years.   As with other traditional Mexican farming methods, Spanish colonization had a profoundly destructive influence on Indigenous Mixteca practices. Eighty to ninety percent of the local population died from disease and harsh living conditions under Spanish rule, and the remaining population underwent drastic societal transformation. The majority of terrace farms were abandoned.   Mixteca terraced farming, 2008. Source: Goldman Environmental Prize   Yet some communities managed to maintain terraces over the centuries that followed, albeit on a much smaller scale. Many contemporary Mixteca terrace farmers have integrated modern technologies—like digital mapping and organic fertilizers, for instance—into the fabric of their living traditions, but much has stayed the same. In fact, archaeologists believe some of the terraces still used today may be the remains of original pre-Columbian terrace structures.   The continuation of these practices over three millennia has given rise to a complex body of knowledge encompassing regional weather patterns, soil health, water management, and local plant and animal species—all of which provide invaluable support for modern conservation efforts.   Although urbanization and modernization have made transmitting this knowledge to younger generations increasingly challenging, recent efforts to document and revive traditional terrace farming, ranging from government and NGO-backed programs to grassroots community projects, have been promising. Such initiatives are helping to reframe and revalue these practices as resilient land-use solutions, continuing to protect and nurture the intimate understanding of the land and the human-environmental interactions that have driven Mixteca society since its origin.