#refugeeswelcome

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The Mayan and Incan cultures, considered to be the most advanced in the Americas, were absolutely rife with the occult and all the pagan horrors that go with it. Also, they embraced slavery to a degree that would make a Southern plantation owner turn his head in revulsion.

Loppie, you’d do well to confine your commentary to that with which you’re familiar – Europe and western Asia. Your supposed acumen ain’t hacking it in the Western Hemisphere.
[/quote]

First, thank you for the suggestion, but I’m afraid I won’t listen to your advice.

I didn’t want to get into too much detail, but I DO happen to know a lot about Mesoamerican cultures.

First, I have a problem with terms “occult” and “pagan”. What is that supposed to mean, applying anachronistic concepts to Mesoamerican civilizations?

They developed in very specific circumstances - lack of beasts of burden as well as adequate sources of animal protein being some of them.

Their natural environment and available resources to a large extent shaped their social and religious order as well as their beliefs borne out of practical necessity, and cannot be compared to corresponding Judeo-Christian norms.

Just like the climate of the Fertile Crescent dictated and codified the dietary requirements for Judaism and Islam. Also, let’s not forget that shellfish is an abomination per Leviticus 11:12, for example.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

First, I have a problem with terms “occult” and “pagan”. What is that supposed to mean, applying anachronistic concepts to Mesoamerican civilizations?

[/quote]

Ritual dismemberment and sacrifice including that of children of both their own people and enemy slaves and captives. As well as cannibalism. Of course, the Spanish priests were horrified. The victims were too, believe it or not.

Nothing anachronistic about it. C’mon man, don’t play dumb. If you’re the de facto Mesoamerican professor that you imply you are you should know this stuff.

Makes me wonder about your claims of knowledge.[/quote]

Pretty good summation of the immediate actions of the Europeans.

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Indeed.[/quote]

Actually the guy in black kills the man, takes his money and gives it to someone in his family to make the trip. Only the richer can afford to migrate.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pretty good summation of the immediate actions of the Comanches.

[/quote]

I totally agree the Hollywood depiction of Native Americans is ludicrous, there were peaceful tribes and there was no homogenous character for all Natives, but yes, overall they were as shitty as the Europeans.
However the fact they were also barbaric does not mean the Europeans were not, or that they didn’t as soon as they arrived, start murdering, torturing and enslaving the local population.

My original point that the Europeans came and did not go to immigrate or just settle there (to point out a bad comparison by another poster you have accepted was stupid), but went and plundered and conquered is factual, as even the kindest of accounts on the subject won’t try and hide. Why did you take exception to that claim yet are so eager to point out the actions of the Natives themselves?

Notice I said both the Natives and the Europeans were bad, only generally differentiated by the Europeans technological and Military advancement. I never excused either side or painted either side as good. You instantly sprang to downplay the European violence and savagery.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pretty good summation of the immediate actions of the Comanches.

[/quote]

Aye. The Comanches were pretty damn solid. Don’t forget the Iroquois. They loved them some torture.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

…Notice I said both the Natives and the Europeans were bad, only generally differentiated by the Europeans technological and Military advancement…
[/quote]

There, of course, were “bad” apples on both sides of the fence but overall – get this, I said overall – Europeans contributed more “good” than “bad.”

This doesn’t “downplay” the “bad.”[/quote]

By what metric did the Europeans do more good than bad? How was the Natives experience with the Europeans anything but terrible for them? Torture, forced tribute, forced conversion, torture. What was the silver lining for the Natives?

Do you mean good for the Europeans?

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Torture, forced tribute, forced conversion, torture. [/quote]

Throughout history, Muslims did their share of this as well, no?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Torture, forced tribute, forced conversion, torture. [/quote]

Throughout history, Muslims did their share of this as well, no?
[/quote]

Yes, which is why I don’t downplay Muslim conquest, the murderous and depraved actions of the Prophet Muhammed or the doctrine of Islam.

Acknowledging this wouldn’t for example, make me downplay the mongol sacking of Baghdad and the bloodbath and torture orgy of the mongols. Which is why I don’t do the same about European actions in the Americas.

I certainly don’t claim muslims in east Timor did more good than harm. Or any such revisionist nonsense.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Yes, which is why I don’t downplay Muslim conquest, the murderous and depraved actions of the Prophet Muhammed or the doctrine of Islam.

[/quote]

And yet you want the gates flung open to thousands who follow that doctrine.[/quote]

Yes I do, like I support Christian refugees despite Christian doctrine, the history of the crusades, the inquisition and the history of pogroms and which hunts. I can disagree with Islam and yet not support anti Muslim bigotry against individuals.

Just like I don’t place collective guilt on white people for the Holocaust, slavery, Apartheid or segregation.

I wouldn’t of stopped white American immigration to Europe in the 20’s under the fear they would come to establish segregation and start lynching blacks and Asians.

Consistency is valuable.

the statements i made about native americans did not come from textbooks.
the textbooks basically state that the americas was discovered and settled
the comments i made were made originally by several native americans i have meet over the years thier is also a person on this site if you look at thier avatar states ,homeland Security fighting terrorism since 1492
remember he who wins writes history

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

First, I have a problem with terms “occult” and “pagan”. What is that supposed to mean, applying anachronistic concepts to Mesoamerican civilizations?

[/quote]

Ritual dismemberment and sacrifice including that of children of both their own people and enemy slaves and captives. As well as cannibalism. Of course, the Spanish priests were horrified. The victims were too, believe it or not.

Nothing anachronistic about it. C’mon man, don’t play dumb. If you’re the de facto Mesoamerican professor that you imply you are you should know this stuff.

Makes me wonder about your claims of knowledge.[/quote]

Ok, I’ll try to keep it simple for you by focusing on the Aztecs and the Mayas to illustrate my point.

The key phrase I used was “lack of beasts of burden and sufficient access to animal protein”. Both Mayan and Aztec civilizations developed in specific environments where there were significant constraining factors that conditioned their development, unlike the Fertile Crescent and to a lesser extent the Yangtze delta in China which had almost ideal conditions for development from an agricultural and resource perspective.

For example, Mayan and Aztec extensive reliance on maize as a staple food meant that their ever increasing populations were constantly living on a brink of potential catastrophe, as environmental shocks (changing weather patterns, soil erosion due to increase of intensive farming) caused crop failure, widespread famine and social collapse, as was the case with three Mayan collapses.

These factors conditioned codified societal and religious answers, namely formation of complex pantheons of formidable gods that require human sacrifice to appease their hunger and ensure plentiful harvests which are vital for the survival of society.

Codification of natural phenomena into religious practice is nothing exceptional - Egyptians did it as their lives literally depended on yearly Nile flooding patterns, the Phoenicians had a widespread practice of child sacrifice and sacred prostitution to appease Baal, just to name two examples from the Mediterranean basin.

But back to Mesoamerica. This codified social and religious behavior in turn conditioned the approach to warfare, with for example Aztec emphasis on capturing live enemy combatants and their subsequent… ahem…" partitioning" among deserving warriors to boost protein intake for which lentils were woefully inadequate.

As for the wheel as a measure of societal progress, one has to have an economic incentive to use it and appropriate natural surroundings. This is where the “lack of beasts of burden” in Mesoamerica comes into play, because they didn’t have docile oxen to draw carts. Which animal was supposed to draw the cart?

Another economic factor concerns the lack of developed metallurgy as a sign of progress. Widespread availability of easy to work, durable and sharp obsidian meant that there was no economic incentive to pursue other methods of tool development and production:

Also, Yucatan with its extensive forest canopy meant that their extensive commercial and diplomatic network relied of footpaths. These factors contributed to different approaches to urbanization - Mayans didn’t have urban centers per se, but extensive “palace complexes” for the political and religious elite governing over vast areas, which had complex and extensive diplomatic relationships among themselves.

Aztecs on the other hand built a very impressive megalopolis Tenochtitlan with causeways, floating gardens, palaces, temples which left the Conquistadors awestruck, judging from their contemporary records:

So it means that in fields where these environmental constrains didn’t play a part - masonry, time/date keeping and lake/coastal shipbuilding Aztecs and Mayans didn’t lag behind more “advanced” civilizations and therefore the argument about their innate “backwardness” and “brutality” compared to other civilizations doesn’t stand.

Similar cases can be explained for Incas and several pre-Colombian cultures in North America.