Since they're going to claim that Huitzilopochtli isn't associated with human sacrifice.
From Mayan and Aztec Mythology by Michael A. Schuman:
While the north side of the Great Temple was dedicated to Tlaloc, the rain god, the southern side was dedicated to Huitzilopochtli. It was by the southern steps of the temple that the Aztecs' prisoners of war were placed over a sacrificial stone to have their hearts torn out. Their bodies were then tossed onto the base of the temple steps.
From The New Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology:
Huitzilopochtli (humming-bird of the South, or He of the South), the god of war, was worshipped in the temple of Tenochtitlan where numerous human sacrifices were made to him.
That's the god that demanded crying child sacrifices. But there's no need to take my word for it, as a contemporary (Bernardino de Sahagun, author of the General History of the Things of New Spain which is pretty much our best contemporary source on Aztec practices) recorded...
And there they left the children known as "human paper streamers," those who had two cowlicks of hair, whose day signs were favorable. They were sought everywhere; they were paid for. It was said: "They are indeed most precious debt-payments. [The Tlaloque] gladly receive them; they want them. Thus they are well content; thus there is indeed contentment." Thus with them the rains were sought, rain was asked....
And all [the sacrifices] went [to the places of sacrifice] with their head-bands. They were crammed with precious feathers; they had sprays of precious feathers. Their greenstone necklaces went with them; they went provided with necklaces -- they went provided with greenstone bracelets. They had their faces liquid rubber painted; their faces were painted with liquid rubber; their faces were spotted with a paste of amaranth seeds. And there were their rubber sandals; their rubber sandals went with them. They all went honored; they were all adorned, they were ornamented with all the valuable things which went with them. They gave them paper wings, they were of paper; they each had paper wings. In litters were they carried; they went housed in precious feathers, there where each of them customarily went. They went sounding flutes for them.
There was much compassion. They made one weep; they loosed one's weeping; they made one sad for them; there was sighing for them...
And if the children went crying, if their tears kept flowing, if their tears kept falling, it was said, it was stated: "It will surely rain." Their tears signified rain. Therefore there was contentment; therefore one's heart was at rest. Thus they said: "Verily, already the rains will set in; verily, already we shall be rained on."
I say, thank God these demonic deities were crushed and their barbaric cults annihilated - if this be 'theocide', it's probably the single most justified case in history. I consider the eradication of the native Aztec religion to be one of the most heroic achievements, if not the most heroic, of the Spanish Empire & one of the finest pieces of evidence that no, colonialism wasn't all bad and sometimes (in the Aztecs' case, further evidenced by the speed and eagerness with which their local rivals joined the Spanish to annihilate them) the natives weren't any sort of noble savages but in fact complete monsters who absolutely had it coming.
The Aztec are a prime example of mass/group psychosis in a species/population, they did crap that social species (in the wild or the lab) tend to only do when something goes haywire with them.
I used to snark that next they'll be defending the freakin' Aztecs; it's flabbergasting that they're trying to do exactly that. There's no defending those horrific excuses for hairless apes.
Even the First Doctor recognized they had to go. :P (The Aztecs. It's actually a really good Doctor Who story if you can find it.)
Anyway, I wonder if they weren't literally trying to exterminate all the non-Aztec they could get their hands on.
I know they all hate Orson Scott Card, but they'd really hate him if they knew about Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. In that book, time travellers go back to prevent the conquest of the Native Americans, only to discover that earlier time travellers caused it to prevent Europe from being conquered and subjected to a regime of human sacrifice.
The Spanish had a very sophisticated theory of just war: the School of Salamanca. Whereas some others claimed that the Indians were natural slaves, mainstream Spanish thinking was that this was not the case. Francisco de Vittoria in particular argued that the Indians had states, and that their lands were therefore not pure wilderness (terra nullius) which could be taken at will. Instead, war was justified against sovereigns who imposed unjust customs on their subjects, such as cannibalism and human sacrifice.
Emperor Charles V enacted the New Laws of Burgos in 1542 to protect the Indians, and in his instructions to his son Philip II told him to take particular care that his Indian subjects be treated with justice.
Seems reasonable enough to me, but then again, the Pronouns Left believes that cannibalism and human sacrifice is just more of that beautiful diversity.
Funny thing about those death-god native tribes...
Fifty Europeans with one-shot muskets didn't take out 10000 people. No, they allied with other tribes, and warred, and proxy-warred, alongside several native groups. Native groups who did join out of fear... But not of the Spaniards. It was out of fear of the ones they were fighting, any ally in a crisis on the scale of the death god worshippers.
The Spaniards had slaves. People who were captured in far-off lands by those of darker skin tone and sold off to them. Many slaves died in the boats over. But many didn't. And they were fed, and sheltered. Not well, but existent. Slaves had value to the Spaniards, at least in the "asset" definition of value. Compared to being tortured to death in the public square after a rousing pre-game of torture, the Euros were the textbook definition of "lesser of two evils" at the time, there really wasn't much choice: Ally with the colonials, or eventually enjoy Aztec hospitality.
The funny thing is that not only is this exactly right, but many more modern historians are laying increasing emphasis on the allies of the Spanish, because it gives "agency" to the natives - more than saying that they were just conquered by the superior Europeans.
I wonder what these brainwashed Red Guards will be up to when they grow up, physically at least.
Target practice.
I accuse Feminism of being Cancer.
That's unkind...to cancer.
Since they're going to claim that Huitzilopochtli isn't associated with human sacrifice.
From Mayan and Aztec Mythology by Michael A. Schuman:
From The New Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology:
Oh hey, speaking of
That's the god that demanded crying child sacrifices. But there's no need to take my word for it, as a contemporary (Bernardino de Sahagun, author of the General History of the Things of New Spain which is pretty much our best contemporary source on Aztec practices) recorded...
I say, thank God these demonic deities were crushed and their barbaric cults annihilated - if this be 'theocide', it's probably the single most justified case in history. I consider the eradication of the native Aztec religion to be one of the most heroic achievements, if not the most heroic, of the Spanish Empire & one of the finest pieces of evidence that no, colonialism wasn't all bad and sometimes (in the Aztecs' case, further evidenced by the speed and eagerness with which their local rivals joined the Spanish to annihilate them) the natives weren't any sort of noble savages but in fact complete monsters who absolutely had it coming.
The Aztec are a prime example of mass/group psychosis in a species/population, they did crap that social species (in the wild or the lab) tend to only do when something goes haywire with them.
I used to snark that next they'll be defending the freakin' Aztecs; it's flabbergasting that they're trying to do exactly that. There's no defending those horrific excuses for hairless apes.
Even the First Doctor recognized they had to go. :P (The Aztecs. It's actually a really good Doctor Who story if you can find it.)
Anyway, I wonder if they weren't literally trying to exterminate all the non-Aztec they could get their hands on.
I know they all hate Orson Scott Card, but they'd really hate him if they knew about Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. In that book, time travellers go back to prevent the conquest of the Native Americans, only to discover that earlier time travellers caused it to prevent Europe from being conquered and subjected to a regime of human sacrifice.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2
Comment Removed
We're not on reddit anymore, stop squashing uncomfortable truths.
Alright, calm down.
The Spanish had a very sophisticated theory of just war: the School of Salamanca. Whereas some others claimed that the Indians were natural slaves, mainstream Spanish thinking was that this was not the case. Francisco de Vittoria in particular argued that the Indians had states, and that their lands were therefore not pure wilderness (terra nullius) which could be taken at will. Instead, war was justified against sovereigns who imposed unjust customs on their subjects, such as cannibalism and human sacrifice.
Emperor Charles V enacted the New Laws of Burgos in 1542 to protect the Indians, and in his instructions to his son Philip II told him to take particular care that his Indian subjects be treated with justice.
Seems reasonable enough to me, but then again, the Pronouns Left believes that cannibalism and human sacrifice is just more of that beautiful diversity.
You mean like this?
Funny thing about those death-god native tribes...
Fifty Europeans with one-shot muskets didn't take out 10000 people. No, they allied with other tribes, and warred, and proxy-warred, alongside several native groups. Native groups who did join out of fear... But not of the Spaniards. It was out of fear of the ones they were fighting, any ally in a crisis on the scale of the death god worshippers.
The Spaniards had slaves. People who were captured in far-off lands by those of darker skin tone and sold off to them. Many slaves died in the boats over. But many didn't. And they were fed, and sheltered. Not well, but existent. Slaves had value to the Spaniards, at least in the "asset" definition of value. Compared to being tortured to death in the public square after a rousing pre-game of torture, the Euros were the textbook definition of "lesser of two evils" at the time, there really wasn't much choice: Ally with the colonials, or eventually enjoy Aztec hospitality.
The funny thing is that not only is this exactly right, but many more modern historians are laying increasing emphasis on the allies of the Spanish, because it gives "agency" to the natives - more than saying that they were just conquered by the superior Europeans.
Something tells me they won’t apply the same “logic” to Islam.