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…
Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
191–200 of 322 posts
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#192Earlier 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…
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#193Earlier 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…
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#194Earlier 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…
> 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
#195Earlier 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."
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#196Earlier 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.
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
#197Earlier 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.
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
#198They 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…
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
#199Earlier 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.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#200Earlier 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…
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.