Live data from Hacker News

Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

sciencemag.org

191–200 of 322 posts

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Care to give examples? And where is a place you would define as Marxist in 2018?

>Care to give examples? Sure. Soviet Famine of 1921 (5 million). Soviet Famine of 1932-33 (7-10 million minimum, perhaps many more). Soviet Famine of 1947 (1 million or so). Chinese Famine of 1959-1961 (15-43 million). Cambodian Famine of 1974-79 (2 million). Ethiopian Famine of 1984-85 (400,000). North Korean Famine of 1996 (3.5 million). Number of famines in the capitalist west over the same time period: zero. Note…

The op said ‘dying’ and I was referring to the use of the current tense.

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#192
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining numerous editorials "I don't know how to tell you to stop sacrificing children...."

Speaking of editorializing, the article's author took to Twitter [0] to defend her article's reverent/respectful tone and (nowadays-common) unspoken premise that all cultures and ideologies are equally good and valid. You'd think it'd be easy to use ritual vivisection, human sacrifice at scale, organized child murder, and cannibalism [1] as an absolutely unambiguous black-and-white line by which to demarcate civiliza…

Regarding Civilization or savagery, which is this: Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Iraqi children:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8#

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History could have turned out differently, but wouldn't it require other factors to also change? For instance, isn't European colonialism responsible for both the larger number of diseases the explorers had been carrying, but also the higher herd immunity? And that the native's relative isolation led them to be more exposed when confronted with foreign cultures? I guess what I'm asking is, isn't this a little bit of…

The best theory I’ve seen goes as follows. Humans the world over have domesticated like a dozen beasts of burden [1]. Ever. Most of those animals are in the Old World. (The New World just had llamas.) Domesticated beasts of burden mean (a) higher productivity, i.e. cities i.e. proximity between people and (b) proximity between people and animals. The latter provides a vector for novel diseases to form. The former pro…

I can definitely see how those innate technological advantages can stack up, and it's definitely a good theory. I can't think of anything that couldn't be explained by it, though I still believe there were a number of other factors working in tandem with the domestication of animals (I am generally curious as to why horses became extinct in North America as well as the general lack of native domesticated mammals, if there is any known reason for it; the climate seems well suited for them to thrive, but perhaps the size of the continent and it's general isolation didn't contribute to the selective pressures that benefited Eurasia, I'm just speculating outloud).

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because what "horrific" means depends on your culture. So sure, it's horrific for you and me. But it arguably wasn't horrific for Aztecs back then. Or even for their victims. Analogous in the Western tradition is the belief that honorable soldiers should freely give their lives to protect comrades and country. To me, that's also horrific, but whatever.

That's non-controversial, but it's not the argument that the linked Twitter feed makes. It says that not only that culture didn't see it as horrific, but that we can't morally judge what they did "through our Western colonial lens" by saying that it was horrific. Last time I've seen similar reasoning, it was when a person was attacking the term FGM (female genital mutilation) on the basis that it is "colonialist misj…

I don't believe that Lizzie Wade is arguing that "we can't morally judge what they did". Rather, she's arguing that being judgmental is not very useful for archeologists. Because it blocks understanding. As she says:

> But the Mexica would not have seen death when they looked at the tzompantli. They would have seen life.

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider all distinguishing characteristics between people or groups of people to be projections utilized by human minds to motivate and bring forth highly-ritualized purifying violence, which ranges in intensity from inconsequential name-calling to full-scale genocide. My best historical example of this from pre-modernity was the 13th Century Cathar Purge, where the War refrain "Kill them all and let God sort them…

It's dismaying that user 5DFractalTetris' comments here are so heavily downvoted, since they're clearly civil, literate, grammatical, and made in good faith. Personally I find 5DFractalTetris' claims to be preposterous and wrong, but IMHO downvotes should be reserved for something other than "I disagree with this comment."

it wouldnt make for a good interface, but I wonder if there is any value to having up/down vote for karma and i agree / disagree to allow users to express their level agreement with the comment.

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#196
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get giving people in different situations various levels of leeway as far as comparing my decisions sitting at my computer here to their decisions and such. But damn... what does she even mean by "horrific"... how is that even a thing you would bother to dispute?

Because what "horrific" means depends on your culture. So sure, it's horrific for you and me. But it arguably wasn't horrific for Aztecs back then. Or even for their victims. Analogous in the Western tradition is the belief that honorable soldiers should freely give their lives to protect comrades and country. To me, that's also horrific, but whatever.

OK, here's another example. For about 40 years, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a global game of nuclear chicken. The winning strategy was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). And it was only luck that an exchange wasn't triggered by accident.

So imagine how people in 2600 (if there are any) will see that. If anthropologists discover some artifact that brings it to general attention, anyway. "Horrific" is pretty likely, no?

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#197
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People up thread discuss how good guy Cortez must have been, merely affected by Aztek sacrifices and saving locals. That is somehow on topic? Why the difference? It is as if people were emotionally invested into this, despite this being hundred years old affair. So yes, this matters because thread up there want to make adventure book out of this. It is not about trying to figure history, it is about treating it all a…

People up thread merely noted that Cortez was likely correct, and we shouldn't have so hastily disbelieved his claims. They said nothing about him being a "good guy" etc.

His claims were not hastily disbelieved. That is not how history happened there, they were both taken as total truth and disbelieved. His claims were disbelieve for various reasons, notably that he extracted quite a few admissions under severe torture. Notably, disbelieved also by his contemporaries who watched it and wrote horrified reports. He tortured also because gold seeking, not just for human sacrifice cause. They became paranoid and over drunk with unlimited power. When people in group X kill each other and then you kill them all, you was unlikely to be merely horrified and trying to help victims. Your motivations are guaranteed to he more complicated, as much as believe in your good intentions make us feel good.

You can have human sacrifice without it being impossibly large and without it being treated like adventure movie plot and without jumping on every fantasy anyone ever wrote - which is what up thread is. You can belive scientific consensus which is based on multiple sources and findings without making feel good stuff about conquest.

And while you are expressing outrage over exceptional kills, it is fine to ask who the source is. Because it does put things into context as it turns out the report is not by independent third party, but by highly motivated player in political and violent struggle for control.

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#198

They dismiss Cortez and his men as exaggerating the number of skulls when they claimed 130,000, but if you start calculating how many are in the image of the reconstruction in the article, it's easily close to 100,000. This reminds me of how the academic consensus was that child sacrifice in Carthage was merely Roman propaganda, until they dug up the massive infant necropolis near the temple to Moloch (yes, that Molo…

As a literary reader of the bible, I noticed that there are literally one hundred different passages in the bible where God says that he absolutely does not want his followers to sacrifice children to him or condemns other religions for this practice. https://www.openbible.info/topics/human_sacrifice That they had to repeat it over and over again gives me the impression that this practice was disturbingly widespread…

Also, the story of Isaac.

That is quite literally a story about a custom of child sacrifice, with a later minute change of heart.

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#199
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your cultural relativism/multiculturalism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it leads you to equate/compare "institutionalized torture killing of children" with "pollution," that's a hint that you've made some drastic reasoning errors. It's such a silly, unreasonable ideology that it basically refutes itself when you get anywhere near a corner case like this. Some cultures/ideologies really are better than others. If you n…

for people who are dying of starvation versus people who are being explicitly human-sacrificed, from their perspective do you think it particularly matters if they are dying from the neglect and sheer indifference of others, or from direct intentional malice? i would argue that for those on the receiving end, the difference matters very little.

Yes, active involvement in situation to make it worse and lack of involvement in situation to make it better are valued in a drastically different ways in most moral systems.

Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital

#200
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining numerous editorials "I don't know how to tell you to stop sacrificing children...."

Speaking of editorializing, the article's author took to Twitter [0] to defend her article's reverent/respectful tone and (nowadays-common) unspoken premise that all cultures and ideologies are equally good and valid. You'd think it'd be easy to use ritual vivisection, human sacrifice at scale, organized child murder, and cannibalism [1] as an absolutely unambiguous black-and-white line by which to demarcate civiliza…

This seems like an excellent example of postmodernist notion of moral relativism getting too far.

Of course Aztecs didn't see this practice as evil - but why would we care? We have our own moral system, and I don't see any reason not to use it in this case.

Post reply on HN