>Montezuma II, the Aztec emperor, professed a fear that the Spaniards were followers of the white-skinned and bearded Teotihuacán god, Quetzalcoatl, who had been exiled by the Toltecs because he forbade human sacrifice and had promised a return from across the sea to enforce his law.
Bulliet, Crossley, Headrick, Hirsch, Johnson, and Northrup, The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History, Vol. 2 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997), 505–06
Has there ever been a more based and justified event in all of history?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Imagine the women.
the wild women
and the ripping and the tearing. The ripping and the tearing
>rape fantasies
you're unworthy and need to feel shame
Tell that to Cortes and his Castilian friends
rape is eugenic
https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/pre-incan-female-wari-mummy-unearthed-in-idUSN2636587520080826
it really happened
fake colours
>fake
the eyes are blue. Blue eyes is a trait that only evolved once on earth. everyone with blue eyes on earth today has a common ancestor. It first appeared near the black sea. Blue eyed people in peru before the spanish arrived is unexplained with currently accepted theories.
>Blue eyed people in peru before the spanish arrived is unexplained with currently accepted theories.
Atlantis...
Aztlan...
something something lost ancestor civilization...
>Aztlan
yeah, weird how they say the people who founded their civilizations and taught them everything they know came from another continent after the end of the last ice age (flood).
Aztlan isn't another continent, and the people who came from there in their mythology were a bunch of nomadic tribes directly identified as the ancestors of SPECIFICALLY the Nahuatl-speaking peoples of Central Mexico, "not the people who taught them everything they know", the Aztlan legend is simply a mythologized version of the Nahua migrations from northern Mexico, which was literally just a bunch of tribes migrating south and adopting the local civilized culture that had already been in place for over a thousand years at that point, so they didn't found anything other than a bunch of new states of an already existing civilization.
They did not, see
Sharp sense. I applaud you anon. Did you check the other thread as well?
look up Waardenburg Syndrome
I understand this happens among Melanesians who lack Euro DNA
That my friend is a relatively stylized mask that is likely not representative of anything real. The eyes are blue because lapiz lazuli is a precious material, and it just so happens to be blue, you might as well claim shiny, gold skinned people ruled Peru because of the gold masks that have been found (some of which also have blue eyes).
Fortunately for you and me, the Moche Civilization existed, they were OLDER than the Wari and are known for producing very realistic pottery, in contrast to the more stylized art of just about everything that came before and after them, to the surprise of a couple schizos, the facial features in every one of these are clearly amerindian.
these are really good
Have one more
>Montezuma II, the Aztec emperor, professed a fear that the Spaniards were followers of the white-skinned and bearded Teotihuacán god, Quetzalcoatl, who had been exiled by the Toltecs because he forbade human sacrifice and had promised a return from across the sea to enforce his law.
this is another bullshit made up myth about the aztecs that the spanish came up with to justify their conquest lol
the spanish just went on to sacrifice way more people by burning them at the stake
>bullshit made up
its a textbook. maybe you should go to college and read one.
Textbooks aren't infallible, and that comes directly from a spanish source - you know, the ones that are well known to have embellished and completely fabricate details about the aztecs to justify Cortes' illegal war to the spaniards at home
>To a Spaniard it's just a quaint story of a naive noble savage
I don't think they perceived them as noble at all. No, the interpretation is that "we are gods to them" or to make themselves look like liberators.
>the college textbook written by 6 different PhD Historians that has been updated continuously since original publication in 1550 is wrong
sure bro, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.
Are these PhD historians experts on mesoamerica? Because the textbook seems like it's about the whole earth. I wouldn't put it past a phd historian studying another subject to take a spanish source at face value, especially if they want to deliver a particular narrative
because the association of quetzalcoatl and white skin comes from spanish sources way after the conquest - there is no native source that describes that, or a connection between the spanish and quetzalcoatl (or any other god for that matter).
This isn't just me thinking this, this has been a debate among historians studying mesoamerica for a long time, and they agree nowadays that the connection was similar to the connections the spanish constantly made between quetzalcoatl and jesus or other christian figures, similalry to how they did in many other colonies
That, and the narrative makes no sense because the aztecs saw quetzalcoatl as a good god - it was the title of some high up priests, who were clearly involved in sacrifice
You can read about this, you know. maybe read from some actual scholars of mesoamerican history
>Are these PhD historians experts on mesoamerica?
are you? I see little reason to give your opinion sway when weighed against that evidence already presented here.
Your suspicions are well founded anon, I've been convinced this was the case too. Note the Spanish destroyed most native books, and curious they didn't preserve the one text proving their propaganda.
The other anon is a moron, never forget there are hundreds of lurkers here, most of which are reasonable and agree with logic.
sure dude, ignore facts, history, and researched verifiable sources and substitute your own narrative based on what you feel good about believing.
Post this verifiable source you pulled from your ass, homosexual
a shitty textbook isnt a primary source moron, post the source text the invented quetzal-anon myth comes from
>college level history books aren't reputable sources
I dont argue with morons
/b/ tear level argumentation accomplished. I agree with the skeptic. Historiography is still heavely tainted by its european roots. Daddy Foucault showed us the way and I gonna follow his wiener larded ways.
>tainted by its european roots
so you're a revisionist who wants to erase actual history and substitute narrative that uplift oppressed minorities. cool. also not an argument.
>the Spanish destroyed most native books
is there any proof they could even write? as as i remember the spanish friars were the ones who compiled all the oral myths and legends into written text.
I too can agree with his statement, it's pretty sound and logical. In contrast to that of the adversary's misguided opinions and emotions.
>I don't think they perceived them as noble at all.
I'm specifically referring to Montezuma. The commoner filth were undoubtedly savage, but Montezuma was by nearly all accounts a cut above the rest.
>the interpretation is that "we are gods to them"
Again, this is not a justification for anything the Spaniards did. At best it could be interpreted as an ego boost until the local priest reminds you that the savages worshiped devils.
>or to make themselves look like liberators
How is a Spaniard a liberator for being mistaken for a pagan deity? Would a burglar justify breaking into someone's home by noting how much he looks like the victim's father? Shit makes no sense.
The idea that they're liberating them from human sacrifice. You know, the whole thing about quetzalcoatl being " exiled by the Toltecs because he forbade human sacrifice"
And people back then would have perceived an interpretation of the spanish as gods or followers of a foreign and superior god as proof or reinforcement of the superiority of their religion. of course it's justification - you have to remember that the spanish constantly relied on meshing christianity with local religions by taking some figure in their mythology and saying that's actually jesus
if you say the people there already recognized you as followers of jesus there to liberate them, of course the christians back at home are gonna be into that
>You know, the whole thing about quetzalcoatl being " exiled by the Toltecs because he forbade human sacrifice"
I didn't know this was a thing. You should've mentioned it earlier.
>people back then would have perceived an interpretation of the spanish as gods or followers of a foreign and superior god as proof or reinforcement of the superiority of their religion
And they would be correct for perceiving it as such. It's an incredibly naive phenomenon.
>of course it's justification - you have to remember that the spanish constantly relied on meshing christianity with local religions by taking some figure in their mythology and saying that's actually jesus
>if you say the people there already recognized you as followers of jesus there to liberate them, of course the christians back at home are gonna be into that
I can sort of understand this. Are there any examples of this interpretation in the historical record, or is this something that was made up 6 months ago in some university break room?
It's in the original post
>I can sort of understand this. Are there any examples of this interpretation in the historical record, or is this something that was made up 6 months ago in some university break room?
Which part exactly? there are plenty of examples of the spanish (and other europeans to be fair) using other religious figures as analogues to jesus/god - for example, the staff god/viracocha was the one they chose for the andes. You can even see this in the christianization of pagan europe, or even before christianity, with romans incorporating other religions into their pantheon
I didn't come up with these ideas, I'm practically regurgitating what mesoamerican historians say on this topic
yes, not to mention very few of the priests or religious authorities survived very long. The spanish put a large priority on converting the populace, and the narrative of the good christians spreading the glory of god
god youre moronic. why are you even on his? no grounding in basic history and resultantly no proper instincts for topics you bumble into
>why are you even on his?
*/his/
>no grounding in basic history and resultantly no proper instincts for topics you bumble into
Resorting to reddit polemics makes you come across as a manchild. Feel free to make an actual argument whenever you wish.
you dont have any arguments worth a shit homosexual
leave and come back when you start making sense
Did your ancestors murder Montezuma, perchance?
They were liberators to some people at least. Not to others though.
yeah I mean I'm not saying they were or weren't - just saying they definitely wanted to appear that way.
>to justify their conquest
There is no interpretation of that tale that could be used to justify the conquest. To a Spaniard it's just a quaint story of a naive noble savage. To the descendants of the Aztecs it would take on a rather different meaning. What better way to justify regicide than to conclude that Emperor Montezuma was an incompetent delusional traitor?
>no interpretation of that tale that could be used to justify the conquest.
Using aztec laws and religious symbols to give the Spanish legitimacy is a consistent theme Spanish depictions of the conquest. Its constantly talked about by historians. Literally a whole book about it called "when Moctezuma met cortez".
Cortez describes a whole speech by Moctezuma, filled with references to Spanish laws, about how Cortez is being sent by their gods to take over. That he represents the setting of the fifth sun. Its very obvious what these little false anecdotes throughout the letters are trying too do.
How many people did Spain burn at the stake? Have you even bothered to check?
I don't know about the specifics of the story OP mentioned, but the Indians originally thought the Spaniards to be Gods or sent by them, and the Mexicans had a prophecy of their ancestors that from there were the sun rises men would come that would rule over their land
Kino image, GG Cortez
I agree with whichever narrative is capable of culturally destabilizing Mexico.
I wonder how many care about native cultures, native languages are going extinct and declined massively in the past 2 centuries
>because he forbade human sacrifice
That prophecy was true, God used the Spanish to end human sacrifice there and install true worship of the true God.
There is a great book on this subject. Worth reading.
Wtf guys can’t we just agree that there’s a chance that the source is unreliable. Why is there such a need for this shitfling?
You don’t need to have a PhD in history to evaluate sources based off information you’ve read or been reading taught by other specialists in the field.
Is that why I shit myself every time I go to cancun?
Quetzalcoatl wasn't white-skinned or bearded, specially not the Teotihuacano version, which was literally just a feathered snake, not even anthropomorphic like he was during the Postclassic period (pic related is a colonial spanish interpretation of the anthropomorphic Quetzalcoatl iconography, as you can see his skin was literally the opposite of white).
>who had been exiled by the Toltecs because he forbade human sacrifice
In the legend, the figure usually labeled as Quetzalcoatl wasn't exiled for forbidding sacrifices, he left after being disgraced, tricked by a another God into comitting incest. The figure is also probably not supposed to be the actual God Quetzalcoatl but just a king who bore his name and somewhat incarnated some of his aspects, it's also impossible to determine if the whole forbidding human sacrifice thing was present in pre-columbian times for reasons i'll get to later.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that the deity Quetzalcoatl forbid human sacrifices, in fact there is evidence for the contrary. Remains of human sacrifice have been found in Temples dedicated to him, most notably in Teotihuacan's feathered serpent temple, which even your source lists as the originator of the feathered serpent deity archetype. Furthermore, Quetzalcoatl was also a patron deity of the mesoamerican priesthood, a group of people who obviously did not shy away from human sacrifices, according to some sources, many offices in the Aztec priesthood literally had the word Quetzalcoatl in their name.
As some anons have probably already pointed out, the idea of Quetzalcoatl as a benevolent deity that was also apparently confused for Hernan Cortez is a postcolonial one. No one who was actually present in the conquest made mention of it, not even Cortez in his letters.
Aztec is the new, degenerated version of Mayan. Which is itself a degenerated version of the Wari. Of course the Aztec were confused, the people who gave them their cosmology had been gone for millennia by the time the Spanish showed up.
none of those r actually related u schizo freak
>none of those r actually related
of course they are... the cosmology evolved over the millenniums but they're all strait line descended from one another. You probably dont see the connection between the greek and roman pantheon either
>Aztec is the new, degenerated version of Mayan. Which is itself a degenerated version of the Wari
The Wari lived in a completely different continent and had nothing to do with the Aztecs or any other Mesoamerican civilization, they were as related to one another as China was to medieval Europe, it's also quite dumb of you to talk about them right now since we barely know anything about their religion or mythology.
The Aztecs have nothing to do with the Maya other than the fact they were both part of the same group of related Civilizations, all of which descend from the Olmec culture. The Aztecs and the Maya lived in two different of subregions of Mesoamerica and they were contemporary with one another, so suggesting that the Aztecs are a "degenerated version" of the Maya is beyond ridiculous.
Kukulkan and Cu Chulainn are two completely different words, one means "Feathered Serpent" the other means "Chulainn's Dog", Kukulkan was most definetly not a foremost Maya deity for most of Maya history and was virtually non-existant outside of Maya polities under heavy influence from Central Mexican cultures (one of which are the Aztecs) even when the spanish arrived.
It's funny how your type talks about shit like this as if you knew anything other than the most basic, superficial information. Your hilariously wrong thoughts on the relationship between Aztec and Maya is enough to invalidate anything you say about these cultures.
lmao super mogged i didnt think anyone would take that schizo so seriously, but im pleased u did so
>The Wari lived in a completely different continent
you're kidding right?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/101025-mummies-wari-peru-lima-pyramid-science-pictures#:~:text=A%20rare%20undisturbed%20tomb%20atop%20an%20ancient%20pyramid%20in%20Lima,may%20have%20been%20sacri...
>A rare undisturbed tomb atop an ancient pyramid in Lima, Peru, has yielded four 1,150-year-old, well-bundled mummies of the Wari culture
Yes you dumb fricking Black person, Peru is in a different continent from Mexico, learn some fricking basic geography
>the incan, aztec, and mayan weren't related cultures descending from the same root
you really believe that? funny.
The Aztecs and Mayas are related to each other and descend from the same source, the Inca and other andean Civilizations aren't related to mesoamericans. Contrary to what you probably believe, The Inca weren't jungle dwelling pyramid builders. Their architecture was completely different, they way they dressed was completely different, their religion was different, their political system was different, the one single thing that they have in common is both being located in the Americas. Again, you people are awfully superficial and act all smug when you know about as much about these cultures as the average normalgay.
what kind of biome did they live in
whyd the inca make crazy ass stone walls instead of regularly shaped stones in walls
Why not
It's art. plus, stone was large and hard - difficult to work. This method meant less shaping rocks
does it? the irregularities still needed to be precision fitted. does more angles per stone result in less work per stone as compared to making standardized blocks?
Less material needs to be removed from each stone
>weren't pyramid builders
the megalithic construction style is consistent enough to be interesting.
I wasn't trying to imply that they weren't interesting, just leaving it clear that andean, and specially incan architecture was very different from mesoamerican architecture.
>incan architecture was very different from mesoamerican architecture
not really, not if you go back far enough. Pre Mayan mesoamerican stonework is obviously of the same source as south american work
pic related is Incan on the left and Toltec on the right
There is definitely a root source for these cultures that they're all derived from.
I mean, only if you go so far back that you just mean the first people in the americas
caryatids exist all ofver europe too, do the greeks have a shared culture with the inca because they made caryatids?
>Pre Mayan mesoamerican stonework
The picture you posted isn't pre-mayan you buffoon. By the time the toltecs were a thing, IF they were a thing at all, Maya civilization was already thousands of years old.
>pic related is Incan
Again i'm impressed that you think you know anything about this topic when you don't know even the basics of what you're talking about. No it's not, it's from the Tiwanaku civilization, which is not Inca. And yes their architecture is different if you look at literally anything at Tiwanaku that isn't a vaguely similar statue that has a different pose, is dressed differently and likely represent different things.
>isn't a vaguely similar statue
your living in denial if you cant see those two things are related
different styles, only vaguely similar shapes
you could find similar shapes all over the world
do you think totems in the pacific north west are from the same culture?
Again, their religions, the way they dressed, the manner they recorded information, the way they organized their society, their architecture were all completely different from one another, yet one fricking statue is all you need as proof to think they're related. I would go into detail about how those mesoamerican statues represent a very specific class of people who were exclusive to that specific culture and has defining features that are simply not present in the one from Tiwanaku, and how those Toltec statues are also actually just stylized pillars meant to hold the roof of the temple on top of a pyramid while the Tiwanaku one is clearly on ground level, but i'm just wondering why i'm still talking to a moron who doesn't even know the fricking name of one of the cultures he thinks he knows so much about and is clearly completely ignorant of the timeline of the other.
you're deluding yourself. Its obvious that these
are from cultures that are related and share a root. Contrast the meso and south american work with the greek and chinese in this pic.
Black person i won't waste my time arguing with a guy who doesn't even know the name of the cultures he's talking about
I accept your concession. I hope you'll be less moronic in the future
can you further go into the differences between May and Aztec. My mom's side is descended from mayan, I think my great grandmother still knew the native language.
My dad's side is mixed Spanish and Aztec, with the Spanish side coming over a bit later.
what is the link between Aztecs and Mayans? I know the basic timelines between the two, but what more culutral/behavioral/societal aspects do they share/differ?
My impression is that a lot of mayans assimilated/evolved into aztec culture after the decline
Well, as i said in the other posts, the Aztecs and the Maya were part of the same cultural group, together with some other cultures, all of which seem to be culturally descendants of the Olmec culture. Naturally, this means that they shared many cultural similarities, such as pyramid temples, a similar religion with a few analogous deities and rituals, and a bunch of other stuff, even if their languages were completely different. However, it's important to note that the term "Maya" includes a whole bunch of different groups under the course of 3000 years, while "Aztec" is more often than not used to refer specifically to the Mexica people of late Postclassic Central Mexico and/or the Empire that they ruled together with the tepanecs and acolhuans, because of that i'll use the term "Central Mexican" more, since it's a more general term and because the Aztec Empire in specific didn't have much to do with the Maya beyond trade.
And no the Maya did not assimilate or evolve into the Aztecs. As i said before, they occupied two different regions of Mesoamerica. While many maya polities at the time of the spanish conquest did have a Central Mexican or Central Mexicanized elites, they still were very culturally distinct, with only a few attempts at LARPing as central mexicans, mostly among the Maya of the Guatemalan highlands and the northern Yucatan.
I think it's also important to note that Central Mexican influence amongst the Maya was also nothing new, since the Classical period, before their decline, there was heavy cultural exchange between those two groups, including military conflict, sometimes classical Maya city-states had a Teotihuacano elite and Maya peasantry, stuff like that. It went both ways though as buildings decorated with murals in the Maya artstyle have been found in Central Mexico as far into it as Tlaxcala, which some interpret as evidence for a group of Maya doing some conquests in the region.
Such kino art and architecture. I wish more had survived.
Oh wow someone who knows what they’re talking people will surely learn from this and not post this same tired centuries old myth again
The Spanish Conquest of the New World is still generating delicious butthurt seethe to this very day. It is simply wonderful. Your whole world turned upside down by a band of conquistadors. Kino image btw. If only they brought their women with them instead of mixing with their lessers.
>Has there ever been a more based and justified event in all of history?
No, anon. There has not.
asads
>asads
american savages are deserving of suffering?
The mass cucking and seething of the natives is something unrivaled
>Has there ever been a more based and justified event in all of history?
The Crusades, maybe, but I’d say Cortes wins.
Any book recommendations on pre-Columbian mesoamerican civilizations?