Just finished reading Ms. Townsend's book, the Fifth Sun. An excellent, excellent book on the indigenous sources of the histories of the people of pre and post conquest Mexico.
The Aztecs were effectively a Bronze Age civilization, comparable to earlier societies like the Ancient Egyptians, Romans, or Israelites, all of which practiced human sacrifice at some point in their histories. The main difference is that the Aztecs were at that stage of development during a time when European civilizations were advancing into the Industrial Age. This delay in technological and societal evolution stems from the Americas being populated much later due to the longer human migration route from Africa through Asia and into the Western Hemisphere. Human sacrifice is a common feature of early-stage civilizations, often tied to religious, political, or cultural frameworks. Even Christianity, when you think about it, has human sacrifice at its core-Jesus Christ was sacrificed for humanity's sins. The symbolism of sacrificing one life for the salvation or benefit of others is deeply ingrained in human history. Furthermore, does it really matter why societies kill people? Governments and militaries have done it throughout history, often justifying their actions through pragmatic or ideological reasons. For example, what do we think the Spanish did with prisoners of war in the 1500s? Or the Russians during World War II? Or even the Spartans in their relentless militarism? Feeding prisoners costs resources, and for many regimes, bullets and mass graves were seen as cheaper solutions. No society in history is free from acts of violence or atrocity-it's a universal aspect of civilization. The Aztecs’ rituals, while shocking to modern sensibilities, were part of their worldview, deeply tied to maintaining cosmic order and appeasing their gods. It’s worth noting that the Spanish Inquisition, often justified by religious fervor, resulted in its own atrocities. Every civilization has committed horrendous acts, yet they are often contextualized or excused based on the dominant narratives of history. Lastly, while I appreciate Camilla Townsend’s work on the Aztecs, I find the balance of her commentary frustrating. Spending ten minutes discussing their "terrible" practices versus only four minutes on their achievements and contributions skews the perception of their culture. That imbalance does a disservice to a nuanced understanding of their society, which, like all others, was a mix of brilliance, pragmatism, and brutality.
yes because if you teach it is for religious terror it helps people see you as a pagan/heathen but if you teach it is for political terror, which it was, then you be seen as empire to hold in high esteem like any other which they most certainly would not want to do for the Aztecs.
Nehua notoca Daniel Moteuczoma & my last name is a Nahuatl name given to me by my father & his fathers before him. I have read 2 books by this woman "Fifth Sun" & "Malintzin's Choices" -- she does a great job. Her work, as compared to the many contemporary authors of these subjects, are very concise, insightful & truly genuine. One must be critical, picky even, when studying our people (the bigger ethnic group Nahuas). It is important that we hear them speak -- as she has mentioned. And so for me I stick to vetting sources before I read & she does an amazing work in her citations/notes/use of NAHUA testaments ( and of course with the some times necessary supplement of Spanish records). * I loved the mention of the princess from Cuauhnahuac (Morelos). Her nahuatl name was Miahuaxihuitl-- mother of Moteuczoma Ilhuicamina, eventual tlatoani of Tenochtitlan. Tlazocamati temachtiani Camiltzin in cihuatlatoani
We believe it because white people have told us, and for some reason there is more value in what they said and like you said about the Aztecas having stories telling Spaniards with power made sure they had their's, people our condition to be submissive and slowly believed they're way of life is wrong... ✌️
I learned very little from this. I get that the Spaniards had a vested interest in portraying their enemy as savages but the Aztecs were no saints. The only reason Cortez was able to conquer Mexico was because of his tenacity, desease and because other indigenous nations hated the Aztecs and joined forces with him. So there is a lot more to this story than just saying “White man bad”.
Europeans have slaughtered many more than the Aztec could've ever dreamed of. The fact that all all you got from this was a supposed "white man bad", shows how pathetic your apologist statement is.
I was born in Southern California and I am a Toltec/ Indian/ Aztec & India 🇮🇳 Descent
That's surprising
Just finished reading Ms. Townsend's book, the Fifth Sun.
An excellent, excellent book on the indigenous sources of the histories of the people of pre and post conquest Mexico.
I got The Fifth Sun for my birthday today. Reading now
Every time that we think about any group as less intelligent or sensitive we are seeing them as no real human beings...
I am 30 % Aztec
Nice
Couldn’t enjoy the talk because of the terrible sound 😤
The Aztecs were effectively a Bronze Age civilization, comparable to earlier societies like the Ancient Egyptians, Romans, or Israelites, all of which practiced human sacrifice at some point in their histories. The main difference is that the Aztecs were at that stage of development during a time when European civilizations were advancing into the Industrial Age. This delay in technological and societal evolution stems from the Americas being populated much later due to the longer human migration route from Africa through Asia and into the Western Hemisphere.
Human sacrifice is a common feature of early-stage civilizations, often tied to religious, political, or cultural frameworks. Even Christianity, when you think about it, has human sacrifice at its core-Jesus Christ was sacrificed for humanity's sins. The symbolism of sacrificing one life for the salvation or benefit of others is deeply ingrained in human history.
Furthermore, does it really matter why societies kill people? Governments and militaries have done it throughout history, often justifying their actions through pragmatic or ideological reasons. For example, what do we think the Spanish did with prisoners of war in the 1500s? Or the Russians during World War II? Or even the Spartans in their relentless militarism? Feeding prisoners costs resources, and for many regimes, bullets and mass graves were seen as cheaper solutions. No society in history is free from acts of violence or atrocity-it's a universal aspect of civilization.
The Aztecs’ rituals, while shocking to modern sensibilities, were part of their worldview, deeply tied to maintaining cosmic order and appeasing their gods. It’s worth noting that the Spanish Inquisition, often justified by religious fervor, resulted in its own atrocities. Every civilization has committed horrendous acts, yet they are often contextualized or excused based on the dominant narratives of history.
Lastly, while I appreciate Camilla Townsend’s work on the Aztecs, I find the balance of her commentary frustrating. Spending ten minutes discussing their "terrible" practices versus only four minutes on their achievements and contributions skews the perception of their culture. That imbalance does a disservice to a nuanced understanding of their society, which, like all others, was a mix of brilliance, pragmatism, and brutality.
The Mongolian diaspora produced many conflicting tribes.
Does it matter if human sacrifice is for religious terror or political terror?
Yes, it does.
yes because if you teach it is for religious terror it helps people see you as a pagan/heathen but if you teach it is for political terror, which it was, then you be seen as empire to hold in high esteem like any other which they most certainly would not want to do for the Aztecs.
Nehua notoca Daniel Moteuczoma & my last name is a Nahuatl name given to me by my father & his fathers before him. I have read 2 books by this woman "Fifth Sun" & "Malintzin's Choices" -- she does a great job. Her work, as compared to the many contemporary authors of these subjects, are very concise, insightful & truly genuine. One must be critical, picky even, when studying our people (the bigger ethnic group Nahuas). It is important that we hear them speak -- as she has mentioned. And so for me I stick to vetting sources before I read & she does an amazing work in her citations/notes/use of NAHUA testaments ( and of course with the some times necessary supplement of Spanish records).
* I loved the mention of the princess from Cuauhnahuac (Morelos). Her nahuatl name was Miahuaxihuitl-- mother of Moteuczoma Ilhuicamina, eventual tlatoani of Tenochtitlan.
Tlazocamati temachtiani Camiltzin in cihuatlatoani
We believe it because white people have told us, and for some reason there is more value in what they said and like you said about the Aztecas having stories telling Spaniards with power made sure they had their's, people our condition to be submissive and slowly believed they're way of life is wrong... ✌️
I learned very little from this. I get that the Spaniards had a vested interest in portraying their enemy as savages but the Aztecs were no saints. The only reason Cortez was able to conquer Mexico was because of his tenacity, desease and because other indigenous nations hated the Aztecs and joined forces with him. So there is a lot more to this story than just saying “White man bad”.
Genocide apologist eh? How original.
read Open Veins of Latin America
Europeans were no saints either. What is your point?
Europeans have slaughtered many more than the Aztec could've ever dreamed of. The fact that all all you got from this was a supposed "white man bad", shows how pathetic your apologist statement is.
Well said. The Mongolian diaspora is glamorized so much today.