Movatterモバイル変換

37 At 6.26am on Monday December 28 2020, Neil Hart wrote:

What a great article, that puts into perspective the deaths of soldiers at the hands of the Aztecs. Let’s remember also that the reason the Spanish were able to conquer the mighty Mexica (Aztecs) was because the Spanish were so much more barbaric in warfare. The Mexica had various opportunities to kill Cortes in battle, but to kill opponents was not their custom. Cortes repaid this by slaughtering the Mexica and their allies on a huge scale, including women and children.
It is hard to image how shocking the barbarism of the Europeans must have seemed to the indigenous Mexicans.
It is well established that white cultures have demonstrated a fairly unique level unique level of violence throughout centuries of colonialism - always more violent than the populations they subjugated. Just read accounts of white plantation owners and overseers for almost endless examples of shocking violence. And let’s remember that this violence extended far into the 20th Century in the US through lynchings of Black men.

36 At 9.51am on Tuesday October 13 2020, Gisele T DeCorvin-McGraw wrote:

Pure piffle. The sacrificed humans were not merely captured warriors. There is more here that is akin to Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery than the brutality of war. And for those shouting that the “liberals” are always downplaying violence in other civilizations while shaming white cultures, well double piffle on you. You owe your very way of living to the great enlightened liberal philosophers so shut it. It isn’t a question of liberals vs conservatives

35 At 5.03pm on Monday October 12 2020, LaRock wrote:

Why are you liberals always trying to downplay other civilizations violence but you have no problem shaming white cultures. Eat your heart out.

34 At 3.27pm on Sunday August 9 2020, dof wrote:

‘human sacrifice’ was all made up to ‘justify’ the genocide, land theft, terrorism & slavery of the americas ...read ‘dum diversas’ 1452 et al ...peace

33 At 2.04am on Friday July 24 2020, Marlon wrote:

*disclaimer that when I say justice, I dont mean true justice. I use it as an explanation for the intentions of the acts mentioned*
The difference between killing in war and human sacrifice is that one is done to take or defend something out of justice while the other is done as an act of religion/justice towards a “god”.
We can compare this between the killing done by the Nazis in war vs in genocide. This is why the killing of the jews and other target groups was called the holocaust (a Jewish sacrificial offering that is burned completely on an altar). The Nazi’s god was Hitler and Fatherland (as one of the other commentors have mentioned).
Now, the Nazis would be doing human sacrifice. They were killing people as an act of justice toward the Fatherland and Hitler. The same would apply to the Aztecs (the mayans too), even if you put it in the context of war.
We must also recognize that the intention is important for these distinctions. For example, the death penalty would not be a human sacrifice. The reason for that is that it would simply be an act to reach justice. These are done out of a desire all humans have for justice, however human sacrifice would be to kill as a means to give. Imprisonment would not be sacrificing that person’s time as a gift, its purpose is justice.The state realizes that the person does not deserve to live any longer due to their crimes and may even harm others. Although some may disagree on whether the death penalty is ethical, I am creating distinctions.
All these kinds of killing would be considered “just” by those doing those acts. The distinction between human sacrifice and other kinds of killing can be seen in intention. One is an act of religion toward a deity (supernatural or not) while the other one is an act of justice in the broader sense of the word.

32 At 10.27am on Tuesday June 30 2020, rak@libraryofsocialscience.com wrote:

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/resources/koenigsberg-aztec-warriors/

Please click the link to read my online publication, AZTEC WARRIORS/WESTERN SOLDIERS.

Here are a few passages to whet your appetite:

”According to historian Alfredo Lopez Austin (1988), as long as men could offer the blood and hearts of captives taken in combat, the “power of the sun god would not decline”—the sun would “continue on his course above the earth.” To keep the sun moving in its course so that “darkness should not overwhelm the world forever,”
”Anthropologist Jacques Soustelle explains (2002), it was necessary to “feed it every day with its food”—the “precious water,” that is, with human blood.”
”Unlike the Aztecs, we in the West imagine that wars are fought for “real” reasons or purposes.”
”We understand the death or maiming of soldiers in battle as the by-product— occurring as societies seek to attain practical or political objectives. We do not believe that warfare’s purpose is to produce sacrificial victims, although the result of every war is a multitude of dead soldiers.”

31 At 10.22am on Tuesday June 30 2020, rak@libraryofsocialscience.com wrote:

The most significant misunderstanding in this article is revealed in the following statement: “Scholars say that Aztec warriors fought specifically to capture other warriors to offer them to the gods... In real life, no civilization has ever endorsed killing on such a massive scale, and repeatedly, only to please gods!”
In reality, nearly EVERY WAR revolves around PLEASING SOME GOD. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily “make sense.”
Nearly all Ancient wars occurred in the name of pleasing a god. One might also think of the Crusades.

I write about the FIRST WORLD WAR. This war achieved NOTHING PRACTICAL. The mass slaughter occurred in the name of pleasing gods giving names like Great Britain, France, Germany, etc.
The First World War achieved no practical gain. Nor did the Nazi war against the Jews. WARS ARE A MASSIVE DRAIN ON A SOCIETY’S RESOURCES.
The notion that wars are fought for practicial, empirical reasons has no foundation in empirical reality. It’s a cliche.
Most historians would agree with my assessment. Slaughter is undertaken for deeply psychological and cultural reasons, usually detrimental to economic gain.
No one would say that the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust was undertaken for economic reasons. This was a MASSIVE DRAIN OF RESOURCES.The war against the Jews (and the Second World War) were undertaken in the name of Germany’s god, HITLER.

30 At 10.04am on Tuesday June 30 2020, rak@libraryofsocialscience.com wrote:

Rome’s post of October 2017 is on target: “The Mexica culture was based on shedding blood in order to fuel the movement of the sun. You say that the killings were a side effect of war; rather, the wars were elaborately staged and ritualized in order to facilitate the killings.”

Yes, the purpose of warfare and killing, fundamentally, was to OBTAIN THE HEARTS OF VICTIMS in order to keep the sun moving in its course.
An entirely bizarre idea: that the sun needed the hearts and b blood of victims to continue to move on its course.
They could have done an experiment: stop their practice of heart extraction for a few weeks, and see if the sun kept revolving.
But there must have been very powerful psychological forces to sustain such a ritual.

29 At 9.56am on Tuesday June 30 2020, rak@libraryofsocialscience.com wrote:

Well, you don’t have to call it “sacrifice.” But pulling the heart out of a victim and holding it up--to feed the sun god--is not a rational act, nor is it an act of “war.”
This was a very grotesque FANTASY: that he sun would keep revolving around the earth only if fed with the heart and blood of captured victims.

28 At 9.53pm on Saturday June 6 2020, JC wrote:

Mexicolore,
Just a follow-up. The stereo-type of “Indians” in the USA is that they were uncivilized savages. A few pockets of them showed signs of advancement and employed farming, but the majority were hunters and gatherers. To put into perspective, the “Indians” were in the stage of development reminiscent of cavemen when Europeans encountered them. So when it is argued that the “Indians” did nothing with the land, it is promoting the idea that the “Indians” did not develop cities or sophisticated civilizations like Europeans did. This belief is partly negative propaganda and partly ignorance. Ignorance because most are not interested enough to learn the truth. So they just repeat the negative propaganda. And it is negative propaganda because it is used to portray the “Indians” as worthless uncivilized savages.

The truth is that there were advanced civilizations in what is now the USA before Europeans arrived. I have read articles that propose that these civilizations in the North had contact with those in Mexico. And I recall reading that a civilization in the Mississippi valley collapsed shortly before Europeans reached that area. A pyramid mound still exists in the State of Illinois. I believe that there is more evidence of this civilization further along the Mississippi River in the Southern States. But relatively very few people have knowledge of these sites.

Unfortunately, it is estimated that something like 90%-95% of the archeological sites were destroyed by the Europeans. As a result, knowledge of the existence of these civilizations was lost and/or hidden. There must have been many motives to destroy the sites. Maybe in some cases it was to hide the fact that the “Indians” developed advanced and sophisticated societies. And maybe in some cases it was due to less benign motives such as making room for farmland. But what ever the case, these archeological sites were deemed unimportant and not worth preserving. And yet, the descendants of those that destroyed the sites now use the absence of these sites to sting the “Indians” with claims that they accomplished nothing.

But wait, there is a problem. Evidence still exists in Mexico that the “Indians” did develop advanced and sophisticated cities and civilizations. This doesn’t fit the American narrative that the “Indians” accomplished nothing. So the portrayal of the Aztecs and Maya as blood-thirty savages that committed human sacrifice helps the Americans diminish the accomplishments of these civilizations.

Maybe things have changed since I was in school. But No history of the native peoples was taught in school from grades 1-12 (grammar and high school) outside of their encounters with Europeans. And of course, their portrayals were negative. For instance, the only time we were taught about the Aztecs was in grade 9 (1st year of high school). And they were covered in just about three sentences. I’m paraphrasing the lesson in how it was internalized by myself and others that received this lesson (such as classmates and relatives when they reached grade 9). The lesson was that the Aztecs had a large empire and built large cities with pyramids but did not have a written language and were blood-thirsty monsters that committed large scale human sacrifices including children. But they were so pathetic, it only took 500 Spanish to defeat them very quickly. And the Aztecs were the “best” the “Indians” had to offer. Meaning, the Aztecs were the pinnacle of achievements by “Indian” peoples, and they were nothing to brag about. The strategy of almost totally excluding the “Indians” from history lessons further helps cement the perception that they did not accomplish anything.

Mexicolore replies: All excellent points, in our view. Many thanks.
BTW, we have an article about the ancient site of Cahokia, the largest pre-Columbian site in America north of central Mexico, covering nearly six square miles, here -
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/skywatchers-of-cahokia