Don't be given the glowtard (global warming retards) movement any ideas!

Well, I'm sure that all you sneering and jeering commenters here at SDA are just going to make hay out of this.

Well, I believe that every culture is equal and righteous and we should do something to ensure that the Toltec culture does not disappear from the face of the earth forever.

Honeybunch: glowtards is great. I think I will expropriate that as my own!

jlc: "do something to ensure that the Toltec culture does not disappear"

We don't have to, it is already flourishing - something about a recent car bomb with kids as passengers rings a bell n'est pas?

jlc are you volunteering to be the first modern sacrifice to the god Tlaloc?

But for heaven's sake don't JUDGE another culture for what they do. How are we to know whether sacrificing children to a rain god is better or worse than sacrificing children to the abortion god? After all, they only killed a few dozen. Not 110,000 a year.

Interesting article. It changed my views.

I thought for sure that their hearts would be torn out of their bodies and then their heads would be cut off and thrown down a bunch of steps - but - I'm still guessing that this sacifice was a precursor to a lunar eclipse of the sun.

Does anyone know how I can get my Toltec Citizenship?

After all, they only killed a few dozen. Not 110,000 a year.

Are you passing judgement on communism? Oh wait, that was 150 million dead. Sorry.

It is clear from the comments here that I have misjudged SDA readers.

I can see that there is great respect for the long lost Toltec (and other noble) culture(s).

Oh,I know that there are a few RWDBs out there, but I am heartened to know that the majority of SDA readers support the need to bring back the Toltec civilization.

The Toltecs didn't despoil mother Gaia the way our society does. It's time to return to simpler times with simpler ideals.

All praise to TLALOC

...hey jlc, do ya pay GST on that stuff yer smokin'?

;-)

I can't speak to the Toltecs, but the Aztecs were capable of dispatching that many in a week.

"If all cultures are equal, cannibalism is a matter of taste."

- Leo Strauss

Doug:

Good point, but the communists were/are ardent abortionists as well. cf China's one child policy.

But hey life is cheap!?!

Young, old, politically unreliable, challenging to the 'existing order', Falun Gong (organ harvesting), Buddhists, Christians, the communists were/are equal opportunity killers.

Methods of dispatch include mass murder, starvation, assassination (a favored standby by despots) to the recent more 'advanced' polonium 210 poisoning. Polonium 210, isn't that a space thing they put in kid's breakfast cereal prizes?

Human sacrifice to the prevailing political order is a feature set of the human condition. Just try not to make yourself a target, or carry a 'bigger club'.

All of you are racist, 'heternormative,' imperial, warmongering, sexist, colonialist, capitals pigs!!!

How dare you judge the culture of non-European cultures and claim to oppress the indiginous society's right to mass murder children!! It wreaks of colonialist racism!

tomax - I refuse to use any sarcasm/ irony meter.

If you don't see it then either I have failed or you are stupid.

Tough call

Warwick - I totally agree. What right have we to judge people who murder their kids, when we are in the process of destroying the entire planet

Glowtard, LMAO!

jlc- I suggest that you support your naive romanticism with more than empty and ignorant rhetoric.

Start to act.

First, get rid of your computer; that's a development of industrialism. Industrialism was not and could not be developed by any ancient culture.

Then, call up and have your hydro, water, heat etc, turned off. These are all industrial products.

Third, go read a book on ethics. Try one on logic as well. You might find that only a moron, i.e, one intellectually incapable of differentiation and categorization, would say that 'all is one', ie, that all cultures are 'equal and righteous'.

They aren't. A totalitarian state is not identical in value to a democratic state. It doesn't have much that is 'equal and righteous' about it.

A society that can only support 1,000 to 100,000 people is not capable of supporting a population of multi-millions. They aren't 'equal and righteous'.

By all means, bring back the Toltec culture. It would be a two-class system, with rigid authoritarian hierarchical rule, a warrior authority - all supported by fear and fierce religious rites. No freedom, no democracy. But, of course, that's just OK in your opinion.

Remember, stop using your computer and all industrial goods; the Toltec couldn't invent them. And if you want to 'be Toltect', then, there's no such thing as freedom of speech. I suggest a meek silence would be constructive.

I think that jlc was being sarcastic. I certainly was.

At least I hope he was...

I support the movement to bring back Toltecism. I volunteer for the position of choosing those who will be honoured with sacrifice.

This is true. Archeologists and historians have known for years that the Aztecs and several other tribes did perform some pretty gruesome human sacrifices to their gods. The victims are believed, and are very likely to have been prisoners and slaves, since I doubt that there were any volunteers.

jlc fits the Modus Operandi as the triple identity fraud we have seen around here lately.

This member of the "compassionate" left wants to stifle all economies including the developing world's for his righteous cause. I would love haul his ass in front of the poor of the developing world and have him tell them they have to stay just where they are because he and people like him are saving the world from the fraudulent GW boogy man.

Right because European/American/Canadian history is devoid of any violence. At least we didn't burn witches at the stake. Opps.

Dados,

No witches were harmed in the making of Canada.

As for everywhere else, of course there has been violence and stupidity everywhere.

The difference is that if you take your average university class, the Euro/US/CDN society is deemed to be the root of all evil and the indiginous people are either care-free peaceniks at one with nature or only violent because they were made so by us.

The leftards, such as yourself, perpetrate a condescending and hypocritical "nobel savage" myth. This story is one step in your new education. "natives" of this continent and the southern hemi are no different than us. You need to repeat this to yourselves until it sinks in.

No witches were harmed in the making of Canada.

We are apart of western culture no? And if you look back, you'll find enough atrocities in our history as well.

The leftards, such as yourself, perpetrate a condescending and hypocritical "nobel savage" myth. This story is one step in your new education. "natives" of this continent and the southern hemi are no different than us. You need to repeat this to yourselves until it sinks in.

As a sessional lecturer at a University who teaches Native Studies I find it interesting that you know what I know or what I teach. I teach the noble savage myth as just that, a myth. I'm not disputing what the Toltec did, or the Aztecs, or the Cree or the Blackfoot. There was violence. I just find it rich for them to be criticized by a people who have perpetuated more violence throughout history than one cares to imagine. Start with your religious wars of the 16th and 17th C, then move on to the campaign of genocide against Indigenous peoples of the Americas (do any of you know how the Conquistadors treated the locals?). Then mix in some witch burnings and lynching and you have a people who are in no place to make a judgment about violence in another culture.

In Charles Mann's book 1491, which you would like I presume because he dismisses the noble savage myth, he talks about the human sacrifice of the Aztec. He then goes on to say that between 1530 and 1630, the Brits hung, beheaded, disembowled etc.. over 75,000 people (with crowds of thousands watching). The Brits had a population of 1/10th the Aztec at the time - if they had the same population, the Brits would have been executing roughly 7500 a year, more than twice the Aztecs were sacrificing (the number of sacrifices came from Cortes).

Dados,

I think my assumptions of what you are was more accurate than I originally thought.

I have the right to judge who I please as I can think and use logic, reason and my sense of morality.

You think that I'm responsible for the actions of others? That sons are responsible for the sins of the father? Yes, I tagged you extremely accurately.

And just who the hell are you to presume that any wars a few centuries ago are MY religious wars!!??

I'm an atheist, wasn't around then, and haven't been violent towards anyone. The actions of others are their responsibility alone.

I am not responsible for anyone but myself. I reject completely and uncategorically collective guilt. I especially reject collective guilt that is inherited down through generations. I'll double plus reject it for collective guilt inherited down generations and transported across oceans based soley on race.

You leftards claim you're against racism but are the most hypocritical racists around.

primitive eh

Gotta question your numbers there, Dodos. 15th century sacrifice by the Aztecs was on the order of 250,000 per year. Not sure about the numbers of executions in England at that time, but I know it was nothing near that.

While not condoning the savagery or extent of capital punishment in England at the time, it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to the religious sacrifice of humans. I think the Romans stopped the Britons from doing that about 1500 years earlier.

I think we can all agree that human sacrifice is bad, regardless of which group of humans is doing it.

You think that I'm responsible for the actions of others.

No I don't. And I have no idea why you've brought that up.

My reply was in response to Kate's post re: the Toltec sacrifices. The post's tone was pointing to how savage they were. I merely replied that we are in no place to judge their actions of savagery given our societies history with violence and savagery. If we are to judge them as being savage or ultra violent in the 10th and 11th C, what do we think of our own history?

Toltecs ?

Are they related to the Monbac Tribes that work for UPS now ? You know the Monbac Tribe, the ones that stand behind the UPS Trucks at the Frieght Terminals and go " Mon Back , Mon Back !"
,

Gotta question your numbers there, Dodos. 15th century sacrifice by the Aztecs was on the order of 250,000 per year.

Not my numbers, Herman Cortes' numbers. Since he was actually there, I'll take his word on it :) Where do you get the number of 250,000 a year?

Not sure about the numbers of executions in England at that time, but I know it was nothing near that.

If you aren't sure of the numbers, how can you dismiss the one's I put forth :) Honestly, they come from Mann's book 1491 and he sources Cambridge historian V.A.C. Gatrell.

Boy, there is one poster here (who shall remain nameless but has initials ET) who consistently demonstrates the complete absence of a sense of humour or irony.

As for the topic at hand, Warwick is correct - nobody should be judged on the sins of their fathers. Therefore, what probative value do we get in our own world from this discovery of brutality that occured a millenium ago?

As for the claim that those who criticize the policies of Western countries are "anti-West" or "anti-American" or whatever, in my mind that is totally inaccurate. On the contrary, they recognize that the western culture is superior, and part of the greatness of our culture is that we are democratic and that it is possible for the people to become powerful enough to affect change. We rank and file have no power when it comes to the despots in the other parts of the world, but we can sure try to keep our own houses in order. Merely striving to be "not as bad as the other guys" isn't setting the bar high enough in our enlightened society. Why not demand a more perfect union?

Warwick, he's not saying you're responsible for anything. You just can't condem other cultures for their use of violence, when our own is just as guilty. The fact that you're an athiest really has nothing to do with it.
But I really do love how you get offended at something as small as "your religous wars". Then you go right ahead and try to call people with a belief other than your own mentally handicapped.

Abortion and Euthanasia may one day be thought to be a barbaric ritual.

I wonder if a future Canadian govenment will apologise for allowing abortion to happen and compensate anyone who was ever a kid?

"I just find it rich for them to be criticized by a people who have perpetuated more violence throughout history than one cares to imagine."

OK Dodos, well I'm one of your pet indians - so I guess by your criteria I have the right to criticize other cultures. So those other cultures were nasty and were probably thousands of years from being as enlightened and free as we are now so I guess we're lucky to be rid of them.

We're lucky to be rid of a lot of primitive culture. We're lucky to be rid of the potlatch where slaves were burned alive, we're lucky to be rid of indian hunter-gatherer societies, where herds were marched off of cliffs and we're lucky
to be rid of taliban culture where people were murdered because of their race and religion.

Are my hands clean enough to venture a valid opinion, professor? Can you feel free to criticize me or are you too choked with guilt about something some dead person you're related to did to some dead person I'm related to?

How about this, why not keep your racial hang-ups between you and your psychiatrist, and try and argue based on fact and logic?

Warwick - that's an excellent post to Dodos.

That's exactly right -the ignorant claim by such as Dodos, that actions are heritable, is actually a tactic of domination. That type will claim that 'your ancestors did such and such', and, using the empirically and illogical claim that behaviour is heritable - will assign guilt and blame to you, who are currently alive.

Then, they go onto say 'Therefore, your criticism of people now, is invalid, because, 500 years ago, people of the same ethnic group as you, did such and such.

Dodos - actions are not inherited. OK?

And the British in the 16th century population was about 5 million. The Aztec population about the same time was about 18-19 million. The last time I checked in basic math, 5 million is not one tenth of 19 million.

Dodos - I hope that you rapidly dismiss the romantic nonsense of the Noble Savage. Then, I hope that you move on to reject inherited identities (such as the alcoholic native, such as the bloodthirsty savage) and then, go onto study exactly WHY the native societies were organized the way they were.

Do you deal with the ecological constraints of their territories? Do you deal with the ecological nature of Europe that led to its constant overpopulation and need to colonize? Do you deal with the carrying capacities of different economies - such as hunting/gathering, pastoral nomadic and horticulture? Do you deal with WHY these economies are found in each society? Do you deal with the resulting social organization - the fact that the social organization validates the economic system?

Those type of analyses would greatly benefit the students. So - what do you teach?

"My reply was in response to Kate's post re: the Toltec sacrifices."

You should probably do a word count on what I wrote before wasting time explaining what I meant by it.

I didn't say I was offended by violence nor did I bother comparing the relative violence of early American cultures with western cultures of the time.

I don't care what it took. I'm just glad they came out on the winning end.

Only Kate knows what this particular posting achieves. Shes probably patting herself on the back for belonging to some kind of western "civilization" responsible for wiping out this horrid race.

Children were sacrificed, albeit at an altar for a God. The difference between sacrificing a child in that way and sacrificing a child in the many many many many wars that western civilization has fought within itself is vastly different, of course. A child killed during a war died for a good cause, regardless of which side of western civilization the child is unfortunate to be born in.

Pat your back, Kate. The children of the United Kingdom were sacrificed for the same good as the children of Dresden as the war continued. Russians, Germans, Britishers, Americans, (all westerners) sacrificed many children, albeit those children usually were sacrificed because they fell on the wrong side of some border built on linguistic lines. Thats not to say that the Japanese werent busy "sacrificing" Chinese and other Asian people, and they in turn had their children "sacrificed" by the Americans.

The only difference between the children sacrificed in various parts of the world is the method used. Slit a throat or drop a bomb, or a nuke for that matter. What difference does it make? Its all for the greater good isnt it. One is dedicated to god, the other to the nations state.

Oh, did I forget to mention that all cultures show a remarkable ability to sacrifice the children of others, families, or tribal groups or nations, or civilizations? I dont think the Toltec can take all the credit here.

jeremiah - your sophistry of relativism, which means that every act is equivalent to every act, means that every act is therefore without meaning. That's a clear inability to reason, for reasoning requires a capacity to differentiate and understand causality.

In your view, there's no difference between fighting to prevent a totalitarian fascist regime from supreme domination in the world - and fighting to actually set up that totalitarian fascist regime!

That's quite a remarkable perspective - everything is the same. Causality doesn't matter. So, if you kill someone because you are psychotic and like killing (Hannibal Lector) - and you kill someone because they are psychotic and attempting to kill you...to you, 'it's all the same'.

Such an inability to differentiate between actions is a symptom of a lack of critical thinking ability - as well as a lack of morality and ethics.

Your 'child imagery' is an emotional appeal and is therefore fallacious.

If behaviour is not heritable, then it is illogical to assume that the ritual of sacrifice that occured 1000 years ago would still be continuing today if that society had remained in existence.

JW:

"Warwick, he's not saying you're responsible for anything. You just can't condemn other cultures for their use of violence, when our own is just as guilty."

Wanna reread your sentence? If you and Dados are not saying I'm responsible, how come I can't comment on something because "my own is just as guilty?" My own culture bears no resemblance to what was on offer 30 years ago here in Canada, never mind 300 years ago an ocean away.

That "my culture" may have perpetrated violence in no way detracts from pointing out/condemning that of other cultures. I can and will. I can also point out that violence like in Hapsburg Spain who drove the inquisition or the Kaiser's Germany who (along with the Habsburg's Austria) started WWI, wasn't cultural as it was top-down, non-representative and oppressive form of government which victimized its own citizens as much as their supposed enemies.

But that obscures the real point. I can criticize all cultures on the same basis: that of a free minded, non-violent individual responsible for no other person but myself. I condemn the Spanish Inquisition and the Aztecs child murder. I'm responsible in no way for either. Even a German can decry violence so long as that German wasn't a Nazi. Collective blame/guilt is the basis of hate and racism.

What I object to the most with campus lefties is the identity politics and group grievance-mongering. People are individuals first, not part of the borg.

Let the guilty bear responsibilities for their actions. Let the innocent's good name not be tarred by the guilty. Let the universities hire some people who can tell the difference.

OK Dodos, well I'm one of your pet indians - so I guess by your criteria I have the right to criticize other cultures. So those other cultures were nasty and were probably thousands of years from being as enlightened and free as we are now so I guess we're lucky to be rid of them.

Pet Indian? Sorry, there are laws against that now.

I guess my problem is characterizing these cultures just as violent. Were there violent aspects? Sure, there are in every society and culture. These cultures were also dynamic and complex and advanced in many other areas - philosophy, theology, etc... The Aztec, Inka and Mayan cities awed Conquistadors with their size and sophistication (I think it was Aztec cities that had undergound sewers!).

Are my hands clean enough to venture a valid opinion, professor? Can you feel free to criticize me or are you too choked with guilt about something some dead person you're related to did to some dead person I'm related to?

Why does everyone keep bringing up guilt? I don't feel guilt one bit.

How about this, why not keep your racial hang-ups between you and your psychiatrist, and try and argue based on fact and logic?

Hey, I have facts.

Um ET, I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said that traits were heritable. All I did was say that it is rich for people today to criticize a past society as being too violent or savage when our society itself has just a violent past, if not more. It is a simple argument.

It seems so obvious, but I guess it still needs to be said:

People dieing in a war is not morally or ethically the same as people being ritually sacrificed. Both are evil, but they are not equivalent. And besides, we know that in addition to their habit of human sacrifice, the Aztecs also killed people in war, took slaves, burned villages, etc. So jeremiah, what the heck is your point anyway?

I am not saying that one is better than the other mind you, but it seems to me that jeremiah is playing the moral equivalence game here.

My point about all of this is as follows: To those who deny the fact of human sacrifice by various tribal societies usually do so (in my view) because of a certain smugness of position that arises from their self appointed position as the judge of cultures, but then they ironically deride others because they presume to judge other cultures. But these folks get around this by judging their own culture harshly so they can take pride in their repentance (and subtly elevate themselves above the sin they decry), while at the same time they judge tribal cultures leniently, so they can take pride in their ability to see past the racism of their own culture. But all the while they seem to me to be woolly headed limousine liberals with a few "pet indians" (as Robert so aptly put it) about the place for a bit of colour.

My undergrad degree is in Anthropology, and yes, I met more than a few of this type along the way, most of them tenured.

dodos - it isn't an argument at all; it's your opinion and it's untenable. Read what Warwick has said. Read it. He's saying something very important and you are missing it.

You are denying us the right to critique. Why? In this situation, the issue is state violence. Carried out for socioreligious reasons. We are critiquing it. And our critique is that it is unacceptable.

You, and jlc and jeremiah (are you all one?) come into the picture and say that we, who are here now, cannot critique this state violence, that we have no right to critique this state violence, because our ethnic ancestors were guilty of state violence.

What on earth does such a link have to do with our individual right - and duty- to think, analyze, reason and critique?

You are committing a logical fallacy. It goes like this..
The Aztec were evil (carried out state violence)
Your ancestors were evil
Therefore, you are evil (ie, tainted and have no ethical right to criticize).

The above outline, your argument, is logically fallacious.

Now, again - what exactly are you teaching your students? Have you explained the reasons for the difference between population sizes, between social organizations, between societal norms?

Dados:

Earlier you said:

"I just find it rich for them to be criticized by a people who have perpetuated more violence throughout history than one cares to imagine."

This is the basis in your logic which is at the root of my objection. I don't think it was a mere slip that you said the posters here on SDA in 2007 are "a people who have..."

This statement is one in which you condemn. When you condemn today's people for actions of the past you are placing blame in a way that is racially hereditable. You are in effect saying that we are responsible for actions we did not perpetrate because we share racial characteristics with the people who did.

This is the same racist attitude that makes other lefties whine about "reparations" to victim groups generations after any wrong that was inflicted even long after anyone who could have been effected is long dead.

This is the same thing as saying the sons are responsible for the sins of the father.

I reject that and point out again that a critics of the Aztecs does not preclude one from criticizing the Europeans, Canadians or Imperial fricken Japan. They are unrelated issues.

You backtrack in your current post only after being confronted with the illogic of your bias. Keep backtracking.

Ahhhhh....the sweet pungent smell of leftist indignation comming from Jeremia is enough to clear ones sinuses in the morning.
"Thats not to say that the Japanese werent busy "sacrificing" Chinese and other Asian people, and they in turn had their children "sacrificed" by the Americans".
War is brutal, ugly and extremely unfair to civilians. However, the Americans did not start the second world war it was the Japanese and the Germans who did. The fact that Japanese and German civilians were killed by the Allies is a tradgedy. However, judging the rightness in war can only be done by assessing who's intentions are the least evil. A big clue here for you is the fact the Japanese and the Germans were attempting to dominate the world and committed genocide in the process. The allies along with the Americans did everything they could to avoid war but ended up being drawn into fighting a brutal enemy who did not fight fair.
I thank God everyday that is the far from perfect Americans who are the only super power in the world today. I cannot imagine the hellhole this planet would have become without them.

ET,

In fact, the logical fallacy being employed by Dodos is called "Tu Quoque". For anyone who is interested, a good explanation of it can be seen here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

Warwick.

This is the basis in your logic which is at the root of my objection. I don't think it was a mere slip that you said the posters here on SDA in 2007 are "a people who have...

I didn't not mean people here specifically, just that we are apart of a culture and a society with a violent past. All of us. This does not mean that I think you are guilty of that violence, just that it is part of our past. But those people are our ancestors - they are apart of our society, our culture. They laid the foundation, hence why I say that they are our people - we would need be here without them or their actions.

You are in effect saying that we are responsible for actions we did not perpetrate because we share racial characteristics with the people who did.

I am in no way saying that at all. I am using the term people to mean our culture - our society. No-one is responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I reject that and point out again that a critics of the Aztecs does not preclude one from criticizing the Europeans, Canadians or Imperial fricken Japan. They are unrelated issues.

Violence is violence. How are the issues unrelated? My sense from reading the comments before I posted my first one was a sense of moral superiority - look at what those savages did. I was simply pointing out that while many look at them as savage, our history has a similar history in brutality. Doesn't that make us savage then? How can we sit on our moral high horse criticizing others, when our shared history as a culture has similar actions?

I merely replied that we are in no place to judge their actions of savagery given our societies history with violence and savagery.

That's absurd. Where's the logic in that dumb comment. My Stone Age ancestors probably murdered Neandertals, so am I disqualified from ever uttering a rational critique regarding the dysfunctional behavior of others past or present?

Get a grip.

So, where does the clock start or stop for your Original Sin disqualifier?

Let me guess, as a muddled thinking lefty, when logic and reason overwhelms you, throwing out a lame and poorly developed challenge is the best you can do.

So, are you saying that if dad, yours, is a lifer with a homicide conviction, you are unfit for jury duty? Couldn't process the evidence and be trusted to come to a reasonable verdict with your family history? Just answer that direct question or don't bother with a reply. I really want to hear your answer.

Let me make this simple:

1) Do you acknowledge that our culture has a checkered and violent past to each other (eg Spanish Inquisition) and to Indigenous peoples around the world?

2) If you acknowledge that, what is the point in citing the savagery of the Toltec or Aztecs? Is it to justify what happened in the last 500 plus years?

I guess my point is, what is the point of this post? What is the intent of raising the supposed savagery of the Toltec 1000 years ago?

So, are you saying that if dad, yours, is a lifer with a homicide conviction, you are unfit for jury duty? Couldn't process the evidence and be trusted to come to a reasonable verdict with your family history?

Yes I could be on a jury. The guilt of my Dad does not transfer to me. Remind me again what this has to do with the discussion.

Dodo wrote: "Violence is violence. ..."

And here we have a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". You begin your line of reasoning from an unproven point, under the assumption that we will all grant your premise that all violence is equally reprehensible. I for one will not concede the point that "violence is violence".

For example, I think that the case of someone who shoots and kills a man as he is shooting and killing a schoolroom full of children is not equivalent to someone who kills a man to make it rain, nor is this equivalent to someone who "shot a man in Reno just to watch him die".

Dodos

My dirty animal skin wearing European ancestors of long past were considered Barbarian savages by Rome. Rome itself was a brutal society. I guess it is how savages or barbarians are defined, rude unwashed living in substandard dwellings? Makes no difference whether our surroundings are primitive or civilized, the beast is in us all.

ruff ruff

For example, I think that the case of someone who shoots and kills a man as he is shooting and killing a schoolroom full of children is not equivalent to someone who kills a man to make it rain, nor is this equivalent to someone who "shot a man in Reno just to watch him die".

You are right, not all violence is the same as in the case you point out. For me personally, I don't see that fine a distinction in the historical record for the issue at hand - violence perpetuated by states. It all resulted in death and as far as I can tell, there were few episodes of men shooting men to save the lives of children.

"Violence is violence. How are the issues unrelated?"

That's a two parter. Violence is not always equal to all other violence. If you use violence to stop a rapist's violence against a victim, you are not morally equivalent to the rapist.

The second part (the part that is more relevant in this context,) the past violence of white people (to simplify your point for you) is not related to that of the Aztecs. You do not have to equate or compare one act of violence to condemn another. You don't need to draw a comparison. The violence against children by the Aztecs was wrong without regard to what anyone else may have done.

The Turks killed the Armenians. That Stalin killed even more Ukrainians doesn't have a bearing on the Turks. They would be as guilty had Stalin been aborted (and we should have been so lucky.) It is also equally acceptable that a young Russian to condemn the Armenian Genocide without having to prostrate himself for the crimes of Stalin. The two are not related.

We are morally superior to the Aztecs who murdered children in the same way as we are morally superior to the Kaiser, the Hapsburgs, the Nazis. This is called human development.
"Doesn't that make us savage then?"

In a word: NO!

The past doesn't make us savage any more than Paul Bernardo makes you a serial killer. You are not responsible for the acts of others. Your point would only be valid if we were engaging in the past's atrocities today. If the acts you refer to were perpetrated by this generation you would be incorrect. That it happened in the past and would not happen today, that we have a constitution and the rule of law, that we have progressed past authoritarian government (using the violence of war I might add,) is the reason why we ARE morally superior to them. You shouldn't expect less. I would hope that humanity has progressed still further 300 years from now and not regressed backwards to the 9th century...

Again, I reiterate my point: you can judge a person/society/government without having to contrast that with any other person/society/government. It isn't relevant that the Hapsburgs of Spain murdered a lot of people in the inquisition when you're discussing a time/place/people which are not related.

And to answer the question Dodos raises

"I guess my point is, what is the point of this post? What is the intent of raising the supposed savagery of the Toltec 1000 years ago?"

Maybe Kate can elaborate, but if I were to take a wild guess, it would be because since the movie "Apocalypto" came out there has been a lot of denial from certain quarters of the brutal human sacrifice practiced by certain North and Central American tribal peoples, and of the fact that the Conquistadors (as brutal as they were) put an end to this practice. It is not as though Kate just jumped in with a bolt from the blue. This has been talked about quite a lot lately.

But as long as he brings it up, I will ask him this: "Why do you have a problem with this? Is this subject now taboo?" You admit that you do not dispute that these things happened, but you wonder why people want to talk about it. My question is "Why do you not want us to talk about it." Is this one area of native American history that the departments of Native Studies don't want to study? If so, so much for academic freedom.

ET,

Thats one way of putting it. All actions presumably do have meaning, but after sometime they become routine and lose meaning. I can point out to any number of examples, the most glaring being bureaucracy, where actions are carried out "because the rules say so" regardless of the benefit or lack thereof.

You thereafter try to push me into a corner by putting words in my mouth. I dont see the point of responding but I shall try all the same.

You are conveniently pointing to a bigger picture to justify everything that goes on in order to achive a just cause. This is certainly understandable, but I contend that at some point, everything that is justified by the cause is carried out regardless of whether it actually reaps any benefits or not. At this point they lose their meaning. Their is no justification, apart from the "because the rules say so" line. And that is the point that I am making. At some point, actions lose their meaning and are carried out as a matter of routine. And this applies to each and every civilization. They pick on some bigger picture and decide how to approach and maintain that approach.

The Tetocs probably didnt achieve anything from their sacrifices. But at some point it probably became a matter of routine. Something you do, because thats how its always been done. The same applies to any indiscriminate act of war - the Americans and British were all too keen to sacrifice the lives of German children AFTER the reverses on the battlefield, knowing fully well that it would achieve little. Hitting industrial centers is one thing - deliberately targetting population centers is another, especially when your enemies are beginning to withdraw. And you ll justify it as a fight against totalitarian fascist regimes (ironically enough, these evil regimes werent very different from the ones the protagonists placed in their colonies). Note how in both cases children are being sacrificed ostensibly in the name of a just cause, even though it is apparent to all that the sacrifices are unlikely to contribute in the grand scheme of things. You re giving meaning to the sacrifice of whatever, children or not, by pointing to a bigger picture that would likely have emerged all the same.

Reason, morals etc are fine and dandy, but you re conveniently ignoring both the impact of turning actions into a routine, as our bureaucrats often show us, and the consistency with which every civilization suffers from this problem. External shocks do change things. But sometimes the external shocks also wipe things out. The Germans survived - the Teltocs or whatever they re called, didnt.

I don't pretend to speak for Dodos, but what I believe all this comes down to is what he last said: What is the point of this post?

We all agree that we are not guilty for the violent nature of our ancestors. So if this point is stipulated, it follows that our society has overcome the violent ways of our past. Therefore, you cannot say with certainty that the violent ways of the Toltec or Aztec civilizations would have remained to the present day if they had not been conquered by the Europeans. Ergo, Kate's claim that "If you can read this, thank a Conquistador" is unsubstantiated. So the point of this post would be...?

Dodos wrote: "For me personally, I don't see that fine a distinction in the historical record for the issue at hand - violence perpetuated by states. It all resulted in death and as far as I can tell"

This is why you need to start making distinctions if you are going to make any sense at all. Look at the statement "It all resulted in death as far as I can tell." One could just as easily say the same thing about old age, or about life! We all die, but some types of death are more morally questionable than others.

You go on to say "....there were few episodes of men shooting men to save the lives of children."

How do you know this? What about wars? They were often fought to procure food resources, or the land and labour necessary to produce these in abundance. Very often wars have been justified in order to make a better life for one's children. At the very least, those who fight and kill in a defensive war against a foe who would sacrifice their children to the rain god would be children. Those children mentioned in the original post had parents, and I suppose they would have killed to protect them from this fate if they could have, and I do not think it too far of a leap to suppose that other parents in similar situations did just that. An argument from silence I know, but I think it is at least plausible.

This is, um, fascinating reading. A great example of willful or inadvertent misinterpretation of what Dodos has written. Maybe y'all can explain where things seem to go off the rails.

The original post cites evidence of of sacrifice of children in a religious ceremony. There's no editorial comment included beyond the title, which suggests that the Spanish conquistadors' presence was a good thing. Why is that so?

To stop the killing? Even the most unsympathetic of histories of the period acknowledge that the native population went down—dramatically so—thru both disease and the Spanish armies. There were fewer ritual sacrifices in the centuries that followed, but the trade-off was a whole lot fewer people around. Is that to be celebrated?

Or, how about to civilize a savage people? Well, as Dodos pointed out, Europeans of the time were pretty savage themselves and against their own people. Their level of technology was greater than the native population, but that's about the extent of things. How one savage people could be expected to civilize another savage people is a helluva trick to pull off.

Fundamentally, I don't know what people are getting their backs up about. If you acknowledge the character of sixteenth century Europeans, which by our standards today was savage, then what's the point in making it seem as if the native population's ugly violence against its own people is somehow unique and that they were deserving of what followed. More simply put, someone explain to me what we should be thanking a conquistador for?

Maybe Kate can elaborate, but if I were to take a wild guess, it would be because since the movie "Apocalypto" came out there has been a lot of denial from certain quarters of the brutal human sacrifice practiced by certain North and Central American tribal peoples, and of the fact that the Conquistadors (as brutal as they were) put an end to this practice. It is not as though Kate just jumped in with a bolt from the blue. This has been talked about quite a lot lately.

It is unfortunate that people deny these things happen, but we all deny a lot of things in our histories :)

But as long as he brings it up, I will ask him this: "Why do you have a problem with this? Is this subject now taboo?" You admit that you do not dispute that these things happened, but you wonder why people want to talk about it. My question is "Why do you not want us to talk about it." Is this one area of native American history that the departments of Native Studies don't want to study? If so, so much for academic freedom.

Man, I love how you come up with the answer before I do.

I have absolutley no problem with these things being talked about. I smply wanted to know the point. My fear is that people who bring these things up use it as a justification for what happened. If that's true, I guess some alien culture has all the justification they need to steal our lands and colonize us.

And no, as far as I know, it is not a taboo subject within the people I know within the department (remember, I am just a lowly sessional who has taught few classes). Academic freedom as far as I know, is alive and well within our department (as long as it is backed by solid research as should be the expectation everywhere).

oh what barabaric savages!!! reminds me of a bob dylan song: "god said to abraham kill me your son; Abe said god you must be putting me on; god said no; abe said what..."

our society was sooo rightesouly moral in commiting the first mass genocide of the modern era.

"More simply put, someone explain to me what we should be thanking a conquistador for?"

An easy one: The Grateful Dead.

No Conquistador, no Mexico.

No Mexico, no Mexicans.

No Mexicans, No California.

No California, No Jerry Garcia.

No Jerry Garcia, No Grateful Dead.

And this my friends is an example of the logical fallacy known as the "non sequitur"

Karl,

Dont worry, I dont sit around criticizing my own civilization to feel smug. Neither do I pat my own back and "thank a conquistador", and fool myself into only noticing the bright side of a complex history. I m not denying human sacrifices. I am, however, not overly impressed by the conquistadors and what they represent. Suffice to say, most women on thsi board, Kate included, would not want to be around them while they were doing whatever se wants to thank them for.

Albertaman

"However, judging the rightness in war can only be done by assessing who's intentions are the least evil."

But does the rightness of the cause make everything carried out in its name right, especially if some of them are carried out ostensibly because they contribute to the cause, even when they dont.

And freshen your room. Its not sweet pungent leftist indignation. Its probably your Body odour.

Whenever jeremiah posts I always get that stupid Three Dog Night song running through my head.

jeremiah: Neither do I ... fool myself into only noticing the bright side of a complex history.

Nor do I my friend, nor do I. But during my years of study, It was all the rage to paint native American cultures with a sticky sweet Pollyanna brush (see "Dances With Wolves") while painting Europeans as the devil incarnate, save of course that one or two who appeared most to resemble the present day (see Kevin Costner's character in "Dances With Wolves"). This approach was the flip side of the older "Good cowboy bad Indian" approach of the previous generation.

The way I see it is that both the Spaniards and the Natives brought some good and some bad to the table. And the Mexican culture of today is what emerged, with all of it's warts, and all of its wonders. The same could be said of any place that has seen people migrate into it. Yup, it's true. People groups migrate, and they generally fight wars with the people they displace. I'm not saying it was always nice. But it has always happened.

Aztecs, Iriquois, Spaniard, English, Apache, Souix, German, Japanese, Muslim, Christian,... all were "conquistadors" at one time or another.

jeremiah - I haven't put any words into your mouth; you make your own errors.

You are, again, illogical, when you say that 'all actions presumably have some meaning'. I question your use of 'presumably'. How many are purely random and without meaning?

Then, you make the error by inserting a notion of 'the repetitive action' - when this was not an issue. We are not talking about 'repetitive actions' that lose meaning. Not all actions are such.

A violent action fought to prevent a dictator from taking over one's country is not without meaning. Was D-Day meaningless? Was Vimy?

Are you saying that we would have fought in that war, no matter the cause? I must be misunderstanding you.

You are then claiming that the war continued on, past the time necessary for the success of the war. No, it didn't; it continued on until the Germans and the Japanese surrendered and stopped their fighting. You don't seem to understand this point.

You also are making an error in categorizing ritual slaughter to a god with a war fought to prevent a fascist dictatorship. The fact that you can't see the difference - is quite something!

The civilian casualties in war are not comparable to ritual slaughter - again, your analogies are completely false.

As for your constant use of the imagery of children, that is a fallacious 'appeal to emotion' and has no place in a valid argument.

I think that reason and morals are quite a bit more important than just 'fine and dandy'. You are not using either - and that makes your argument empty. Equating a ritual slaughter with a war against a fascist dictator - can't be done. Not with the use of reason or morality.

The reasons the Aztecs and their relations didn't survive has NOTHING to do with their actions 'turning into routines' but with the fragile nature of a two-tiered irrigation society. Ignoramus - no, the Aztec would not have survived; they had no ability to adapt to other societies or to change their infrastructure.

Actually, johnny dickshot, the Europeans of the 16th century were most certainly not savages. They had the mathematical and technical expertise to build and sail those ships to the 'new world' and so on.

Dodos - I'd be careful about some of the 'research' that supports your view. There's the problem, as I noted, of population sizes of the UK and the Aztec. And analysis of data can be very 'skewed', as we all know.

Actually, johnny dickshot, the Europeans of the 16th century were most certainly not savages. They had the mathematical and technical expertise to build and sail those ships to the 'new world' and so on.

Didn't I acknowledge the technological advantage of Europeans at that time? Yes, yes, I did. Is savagery determined by technological development to you? Personally, ritually murdering someone with a stone knife isn't a whole lot different than putting someone on the rack and stretching them until they rip apart because they won't renounce Protestantism. I judge savagery on attitudes towards life, but, hey, if technology is your criteria, then we just disagree.

...you mean jlc wasn't serious?

OMG!!!

Actually ET, I hate to say it, but Johnny has got you there. Some of the most technologically advanced societies have also been some of the most savage, eg: Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, etc. However, I think it would be a stretch to compare the Aztecs to the Spaniards in terms of savagery. Most Aztecs who dies in the Spanish conquest died of smallpox and other diseases. Relatively few died at the end of a Spanish sword.

I'm not especially well-versed in the Spanish conquest of Central and South America—one university class, several books, all fifteen years ago—but in terms of this discussion, aren't we talking about what each culture did to its own people? The original post is about what Mexican Indians did to other Mexican Indians, and regarding that as savage behaviour. Fair enough, I agree. What the Spanish (and any number of other Europeans) were doing to their own people at this time, as well as before and since, is just as ugly. If the original post was to single out Mexican natives for their savage behaviour, it just doesn't work.

...wow, the testosterone is flowing in here, nice to see for a change.

To paraphrase the newer Lost in Space movie:

'when you boys are done hosing down the decks with testosterone, I think I found a way out of here..."

;-)

The guilt of my Dad does not transfer to me. Remind me again what this has to do with the discussion.

You're kidding? You really don't have a clue? Give us a break.

Hey, Dodo, your 15 minutes of fame is up. You've negated all of the blathering indignation Original Sin garbage you've spewed. With a hypothetical dad on death row, by your own admission, you are still qualified to judge a murderer while others are restricted in critiquing dysfunctional behavior by some lame stain in history, figured out your inconsistency there? But, then, you are so special.

You are one of those pompus narcissistic little virtucrats("my position is one of virtue"), experiencing all truths through feelings rather than reason, dense beyond belief, a bore. You wouldn't approve of academic freedom in that smug little universe of yours. Give that untruth up.

Oh, and, Dodo, there were a lot of ??? in my post. You picked the one that was simple, direct, and unavoidable. Think a first class mind like your can give us a reasoned essay on the other questions I posed to you? You don't seem capable of even tracking the crap you've written.

Jeremia,
It is easy to stand back and condemn the Allies for the decisions to bomb Dresden or Nagasaki now that the World is relatively safe from monsters like Hitler and Horohito. The generation that had to fight these regimes had to do horrible things to demoralize the population like the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The fact is it ended the war against Japan saving countless Allied lives.
The difference is American did it because they were under attack and were trying to free the world from tyranny. Germany and Japan did it to enslave the world.
I would like to have you sit down with the an American survivor of a Kamikaze attack at Iwo Jima I met by chance. He was blown into the water and badly burned while 9 other members of his gun crew where killed. I would like you to tell him that after seeing the whites of the eyes of a fanatical pilot that it was wrong to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima and see what type of response you would get.
Womenand children were killed in those attacks and but the question was how many more Allied lives should would they sacrifice once they had the weapon that would end it all. In my opinion the answer was awful but simple, drop the bomb.
However, without hesitation the Americans helped feed and free the people then rebuild their countries.
These are not the acts of a society that does not care that it has had to kill innocents. These are acts of a deeply compassionate society taking responsibilty for a world that has gone mad and acting accordingly.

The bomb got dropped on Hiroshima because Truman understood that to storm the beaches of Japan would have cost 250,000 American lives. We'd been through the carnage of Normandy. As Commander-In-Chief, he did the right thing, the first order of which is to protect your own citizens. The Japanese had refused all overtures for surrender. Pamphlets were dropped before the bomb to alert civilians. The Americans, unsure that the bomb would even detonate or its real capacity did what they had to do.

jeremiah and counterpart, dodo, as history and logic challenged as they are, guided by raw feelings rather than facts really need to discover history books and Google, otherwise, stand corrected.

Penny.

Why are you so angry? Do you not know how to have a nice civilized conversation? Or are you some kind of savage. I might disagree with Karl and others, but the conversation has been respectful. You came at my full bore right out of the barrel. Why would I engage you in a conversation when you clearly aren't interested in one?

All the best,

Dodos

Oh, and Penny.

Oh, and, Dodo, there were a lot of ??? in my post. You picked the one that was simple, direct, and unavoidable.

Maybe I only answered that one question because you said this:

Just answer that direct question or don't bother with a reply. I really want to hear your answer.

Ouch.

Seems to me that Dodos must have had a class canceled to have all this time to write his posts.

Let me guess which one...."Victimology 101?"

"Victimology 101"

Oh right, those classes are experiencing overflow numbers.

Were you hired to teach "Logic 101" and summarily canned?

ET,

Now you re really twisting my words. My entire focus was on the repetitive action and the lack of reasoning that goes into them.

Where does Vimy Ridge come into the picture from? It is a one off action with a localised goal, not a large "big picture" goal. Ritual sacrifices are routine. So was the allied air campaign in 1944 and 45. They were both aimed at larger pictures.

" Are you saying that we would have fought in that war, no matter the cause? I must be misunderstanding you."

I think you are misunderstanding me. I m drawing your attention to the manner with which actions become repetitive actions and lose meaning. I am not talking solely about repetitive actions, but about the manner in which logical actions do turn into repetivive actions. While the cause behind the initiation of these actions might be correct, that same cause is used to justify the methods well beyond when is reasonable or logical. The big picture thus justifies every minute action, no matter how pointless that action is. You seem to be focusing on the initiation of events that can only occur once. Theres no point redeclaring war every day, during a war.

Nor am I claiming that the war carried on past its due date. I think this is a wilfull twisting on your part. You are seeing the war as one whole action. I am seeing it as a mixture of actions. Some of the actions were no doubt useful in bringing the war to an end. Others were not. They were routine to boot, with no real reasoning - they were just being carried out becasue they were a part of the doctrine adopted earlier. They werent contributing much. Wiping out population centers with the German Army on teh retreat and German industry disappearing is overkill. But it was done, because of a failure to apply reason, logic, or indeed morality, to individual actions, and choosing instead to judge the action as a whole instead of looking at the details. This is where human lives (not children, happy?) become expendable, even ritual sacrifices. At the point where they re being bombed indiscriminately when there is no real need to do so, nor any gain to be acquired from it. Does it make sense to you?

And you are, unsurprisingly, failing to see that God and the Nation State are the "Just Cause"s that these sacrifices are aimed at fulfilling.

Albertaman

I think you are missing the point. In any event you yourself admit that women and children were sacrificed to save the lives of men who were ostensibly trained for war and knew the risks it entailed. Women and Children had neither. I m not going to condemn the allies for doing what they did. It happened and so be it. But I see no reason to not point out that they were sacrificing women and children. Other peoples women and children. To save their own. Its how humans operate. ANy other country or people would probably have done the same.

For every angry American soldier you find, you will find one who would recognise that civilians shouldnt be paying for the actions of Kamikaze pilots against naval ships.

Hey, Dodo, your tangential nonsense has been all over the the place, but, you're saying that you only answered the one question in my comments that you were directed to do? Pathetic for a special brain like yours. What stopped you from replying to the others? That's been your style all day.

I'm not at all angry, nice try, this isn't unlike your universe based on emotions, you've thrown out all kinds of emotive unreasoned garbage, you haven't been respective, you've been a first class arrogant jerk. Re-read your own comments or do you want me to list them?

So, dodo, stand and deliver or try your luck at playing the victim game now. You aren't being "savaged", you threw your Original Sin crap out there to admonish all of us with a reasoned opinion as not morally entitled to comment.

Here's an assignment for you, re-read carefully your comments, my responses to you and explain the inconsistency with your response.

Can I ask a serious question here? What is accomplished with personal insults and contemptuous dismissals? I'm going to make an assumption that people post here to engage in a conversation with others. (If I'm wrong on that point, please correct me.) But it seems to me that if you want a conversation to continue, you don't insult other participants or leave snarky comments that don't invite reply. Disagreement doesn't mean that those with opposing views are immoral or jerks, just that evidence is being weighted differently, which in turn leads to different conclusions. If you see a flaw in a person's argument, how does it advance the debate by taking a personal shot at their character? Honestly, I just don't get the need for insults when making one's point.

I thought Conquistador was by Procol Harum.

Too many trolls found the door open tonight it seems.

Let me make this clear.

1) I don't think that any of you are responsible for what happened 500 years ago.

2) You are all entitled to your opinion of the actions of the Toltec 1000 years ago.

3) My opinion on the subject is that I think it is odd/rich/perplexing for us to look at the actions of the Toltec and admonish them for being "savage" without considering the similar actions of our culture at the same time.

4) This does not mean that I think you are all responsible for the actions undertaken by our shared ancestors. Guilt does not tranfer.

5) I do not think that you are not entitled to an opinion about the Toltec because our ancestors engaged in some similarly horriific acts.

6) My point is that I don't understand the criticism or the point of the attack on the Toltec's supposed savagery when our people did the same thing. What do you hope to gain from pointing this out? That we were superior?

7) When I am asked to answer a question and answer it, why do you get mad at me for answering the question you asked me to answer.

8) Never once did I call anyone here an idiot, dumb, or anything they said as such. That was solely the domain of those who disagreed with what I said.

Time for a little truth here. We did inherit our ancestors sin nature although not his sin action. Every culture has committed great evil and called it good. Modern North Americans often sacrifice their children to Moloch in the attempt to the eliminate poverty through abortion. The modern Islamist does the same when he supports and/or participates in suicide bombings. No need to mention Marxism, Natzism etc etc etc. No need for any culture to feel superior to another. However we do need to humble ourselves here that we too might strive after the higher goal which is the elimination of this kind of barbarity where ever it is found.

Agradezca a dios que el Mexicanos fue conquistado por una gente pacífica, libertad-cariñosa tal como el español.

Thank for God that the Mexicans was conquered by pacific people, freedom-affectionate as the Spanish.

I'm going to make an assumption that people post here to engage in a conversation with others. (If I'm wrong on that point, please correct me.)

Only if you agree with the prevailing wisdom. If you don't, no matter how much good faith you apply to your response, you'll be called a troll.

Not really. Challenging the 'prevailing wisdom' is not a problem if one has valid eidence backing valid arguments. But beginning one's refutation of Toltec human sacrifices with evidence of witch burnings in Europe is not a good way to start. Nor is appealing to apparent deliberate targeting of children by 'Bomber' Harris.

One of the problems with counter-factual history today is that it is more counter than factual. And when that is pointed out, the practitioners fall back on expressions of personal hurt at being missunderstood, often coupled with intimations that the adverse comments do not reflect a finer appreciation of the nuances being tendered.

It is true that history is written by the winners, and unfortunately, the winners are the ones who collect and preserve the evidence; if one wishes to refute that history, then one needs to find evidence to overturn the winners' interpetation. Evidence beyond folktales or 'tribal memories'.

Cheers

And these people were enviromentalists and big time nature worshippers just like AL GORE and the other enviromentalists wackos

But beginning one's refutation of Toltec human sacrifices with evidence of witch burnings in Europe is not a good way to start.

But where's the refutation? Maybe I'm missing that part. Looking at the posts, I don't see anyone denying that these ugly rituals existed. Help me out here.

"Honestly, I just don't get the need for insults when making one's point."

That's rare coming from a guy with the moniker Johnny Dickshot.

The Toltecs, Aztecs, Mayans and others (not likely the Olmecs), practiced human sacrifice. It was thought at the height of the Aztec civilization they were commiting 50,000 sacrifices a year, cutting out the heart of the living victim. There is also strong evidence of cannibalism involved in these sacrifices. The Aztecs (and perhaps others) also played a wretched ball sport where the losing team was massacred, literally.

Only a fool would consider this type of savagery equivalent to any type of savagery the Conquistadors, the Spanish, or Europeans in general were commiting at the time. Regardless of the inquisition (which, btw, Islam murders more people in a year than the inquisition did in 350 years), wars, witch hunts and criminal punishments.

Both the cultural equivalency and the so-called white man's burden/guilt argument cannot stand up to facts and reason. Therefore they are becoming rejected arguments,. As what happens to lies.

That's rare coming from a guy with the moniker Johnny Dickshot.

How is my pseudonym an insult?

The Toltecs, Aztecs, Mayans and others (not likely the Olmecs), practiced human sacrifice. It was thought at the height of the Aztec civilization they were commiting 50,000 sacrifices a year, cutting out the heart of the living victim. There is also strong evidence of cannibalism involved in these sacrifices. The Aztecs (and perhaps others) also played a wretched ball sport where the losing team was massacred, literally.

I'm skeptical of the 50,000 number. Given the population at the time, that many people being sacrificed, in addition to natural death, would almost certainly have exceeded the birth rate. It's unlikely that a society could exist, cohesively or physically, if that many of its citizens were being purposefully executed without new members being born to make up, at the very least, a balance. Factor in wars and droughts, and that many intentional deaths just isn't supportable. But if you can point me to a source for that 50,000, please do.

But, yes, again, to make sure everyone understands, those rituals were horrendous.

Only a fool would consider this type of savagery equivalent to any type of savagery the Conquistadors, the Spanish, or Europeans in general were commiting at the time.

First, why the use of the slur "fool"? There are any number of ways to rewrite that sentence without the provocation. You chose that word intentionally—why?

Second, you're underestimating the capacity of all societies to commit cruel acts on their own people. Why? You seem to know something about the horrendous acts of Mexican Indians, yet you cited none of the equally vile riturals and punishments of Europeans (and Asians and Africans). Why? One of the accusations here by some is that the acts of Aztecs, etc have been glossed over in favour of a more romantic view. By not acknowledging similar violence in Europe at the time, doesn't that validate a similar accusation?

Regardless of the inquisition (which, btw, Islam murders more people in a year than the inquisition did in 350 years), wars, witch hunts and criminal punishments.

Do you have numbers to back that up? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in sheer numbers, but I'd like to see some data. As well, it's important to take into account the numbers as a percentage of the population. The effect of an equal number of deaths on a social system is much greater in a lower overall population than a greater one (e.g. Ten people die in a small town and it's a big deal to the community; ten people die in a metropolis, life pretty much goes on). Even if the raw numbers during the Inquisition were less, the effect might have been greater.

Both the cultural equivalency and the so-called white man's burden/guilt argument cannot stand up to facts and reason. Therefore they are becoming rejected arguments,. As what happens to lies.

I've got no sense of burden or guilt. Honestly. I'm responsible for my own conduct, not that of those dead centuries before. As for cultural equivalency, well, I gotta say that neither the native Mexicans nor the Europeans of the time were especially concerned about the notion of human rights, and if I was on the wrong side of the power structure, my fate would equally grim and painful. As such, neither society possesses a notable moral superiority over the other in my eyes.

But where's the refutation? Maybe I'm missing that part. Looking at the posts, I don't see anyone denying that these ugly rituals existed. Help me out here.

Here's some help.

What is it with you and your stuck on stupid insistence on recognition and atonement from people that have absolutely no relationship or responsibility for what happened in the past?

I and no one on this board has or should have any sense of guilt for what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages. It's 2007!

The Toltecs behaved badly. End of story. It can stand alone without a review of who did what to whom going back to Adam and Eve, for God's sake.

Move along. Get a life.

What is it with you and your stuck on stupid insistence on recognition and atonement from people that have absolutely no relationship or responsibility for what happened in the past?

Feel free to quote the passages in my posts that suggest I'm demanding atonement.

I and no one on this board has or should have any sense of guilt for what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages. It's 2007!

Likewise, feel free to quote the passages in my posts that suggest I'm demanding people should feel guilt about the behaviour of their ancestors. Indeed, I and others have specifically stated that no one should feel guilty. But if you can find evidence of me writing that, please copy-paste it.

The Toltecs behaved badly.

Yup. But if it's no big deal, what's the point of the original post?

Move along. Get a life.

I've got one. I'm just trying to enjoy some conversation, just like, I assume, everyone else who is posting here.

dickshot,

Whether you agree with the 50,000 number or not is up to you. However, it is the number agreed upon by the writers (who make these claims based on known facts, not feelings) that I have read. Furthermore, the Aztecs weren't necessarily in the habit of sacrificing their own, they were drawing from their enemies. The same people who aided Cortez in conquering them. As well, this number was claimed "at the height of the Aztec empire," meaning that it wasn't perpetual. As for the various sources, look them up yourself, I did.

The word fool refers to those whose feelings about a matter trump facts.

I did acknowledge European violence. I also made it clear that the amount and type of violence is less than the Aztecs were commiting at the time. Therefore it is not equivalent.

“In its (the Spanish Inquisition) 350-year lifespan only about 4,000 people were put to the stake.”

From the article, The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition, by Thomas F. Madden, associate professor and chairman of the Department of History at Saint Louis University.

Now, I'd like to believe that you might be able to find this years Islamist body count and compare? One source notes there have been approximately 2800 deaths attributed to Islamic terrorism this month. If this is true, it more than defeats your "percentage of the population" argument.

I would say that a culture that doesn't sacrifice innocent young children, pull the living heart out of 50,000 sacrificial victims and ritually kills the losers of a ball game is obviously morally superior to one that does. But maybe that's just me.

Whether you agree with the 50,000 number or not is up to you. However, it is the number agreed upon by the writers (who make these claims based on known facts, not feelings) that I have read.

All I asked for was a source. But why do you insinuate that I'm arguing not from fact but feeling? Given that the context of this is five hundred plus years in the past, I just can't get that upset about it. This is just dry discussion for me (tho prompted, I admit, by the, well, ardent feeling of those who were critiquing Dodos and others). If I have any feeling to all this, it's slight bemusement by how seriously people take dissenting, resorting to name-calling and the like.

Furthermore, the Aztecs weren't necessarily in the habit of sacrificing their own, they were drawing from their enemies.

Maybe we're just arguing semantics here, but executing prisoners seems more like capital punishment than sacrificing one's own. That is, sacrifice implies—if not outright states—the ceding of something of value from oneself. Killing a prisoner of war doesn't exactly seem like the sacrificing group is giving much up. We don't regard lethal injection as human sacrifice. But that's a minor point and I won't quibble with you if you wish to interpret otherwise.

As well, this number was claimed "at the height of the Aztec empire," meaning that it wasn't perpetual. As for the various sources, look them up yourself, I did.

Oh, I certainly could look them up, but in an argument it's normally incumbent upon each side presenting their own evidence and citation, not for the other to have find and confirm it for them.

The word fool refers to those whose feelings about a matter trump facts.

Okay. Where would you say I let feelings trump facts?

I did acknowledge European violence. I also made it clear that the amount and type of violence is less than the Aztecs were commiting at the time. Therefore it is not equivalent.

And there we disagree. We weight the evidence differently and accordingly come to a different conclusion. No big deal. But I certainly don't think you're an idiot or a loser for weighting the Mexican rituals more than European. I would question whether the difference you see in the relative savage behaviour between both peoples justifies the near-extermination of the natives (a "punishment fitting the crime" thing).

Now, I'd like to believe that you might be able to find this years Islamist body count and compare? One source notes there have been approximately 2800 deaths attributed to Islamic terrorism this month. If this is true, it more than defeats your "percentage of the population" argument.

I didn't make that argument. I tossed it as a possibility because I didn't have the numbers in front of me. Fair enough then.

I would say that a culture that doesn't sacrifice innocent young children, pull the living heart out of 50,000 sacrificial victims and ritually kills the losers of a ball game is obviously morally superior to one that does. But maybe that's just me.

I guess so. I could cite drawing and quartering—where four horses are tied to a person's limbs and pull until the limbs are severed—or burning a person alive or red hot pokers placed in orifices or throwing people to wild animals or … you get the idea. As I said above, you weight the actions of the Mexicans as worse than the Europeans. I think they're equally vile and worthy of equal condemnation.

(Still, why do you think my pseudonym is an insult? It is, in fact, the name—a rather amusing one, imo—of a marginal ball player from the 1930s and 40s.)

The Conquistadors brought Christianity to the Aztecs, and they are the better for it. Now children will no longer be slaughtered in the tens of thousands to appease false gods. Christian belief has replaced human sacrifice as the base morality of Mexico. That's a very good thing.

Many Aztec/Toltec religious practices survive to this day, having been absorbed in Mexican Catholicism (just as many pagan European traditions survive). The difference is that Christ's teachings are seen as the ideal rather than mass slaughter to feed bloody gods.

The Conquistadors brought Christianity to the Aztecs, and they are the better for it.

No they weren't. Over 95% of their population died as a result of their interactions with the Conquistadors (via disease mostly). Plus, they lost all their land.

How is that better off?

Dodo,

They're better off because they're not slaughtering themselves.

Disease killed a lot of them - that was inevitable. Sooner or later they were going to be exposed to old world pathogens. 95%? Get real. It was nothing even remotely close to that.

Last time I checked they have their own country called Mexico. How is that losing their land?

Time to get your head out of your ass and accept the fact that Christian civilization is infinitely superior to that of the heathens.

let's all thank gawd that the blessed i.r.a. isn't blowing up schoolbuses in the name of my religion is better than your bloody religion lately