Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023
- Thread starter Buyetyen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The ‘currency’ they used for these regular exchanges with their ancient gods was of course human blood, offered in the form of ‘tribute’ (the Aztecs used a special word here: tequitl, which includes the idea of fulfilling obligations to the world). Just as the Aztecs received a constant flow of goods, services and people from the four corners of their empire, so they felt it was their mission to provide their gods with a never-ending supply of ‘most precious water’ ( chalchiuatl) to fuel divine labours. Most of this, as we all know, came directly from sacrificial victims, whose hearts were cut, still beating, from their bodies and ‘offered hot like tortillas straight from the griddle to the Sun’ (Inga Clendinnen).Self-sacrifice
The Aztecs (Mexica) and the practice of ritual self or auto sacrificewww.mexicolore.co.uk
They gave tribute to the gods as human blood. Also depictions of hearts and body parts.
Another passage
Ultimately, though, only through death would humans be able finally to sign off their debt to their gods, returning earth-fed flesh and blood to the warm womb of the earth out of which it had been born...
USA
SELF sacrifice giving of your own blood is something done in many tribes, not just the Aztecs. Even Christians have " given themselves to their god" Why do the priests harm themselves?
“There is no such thing as ‘Human Sacrifice’”
What is meant by Aztec human sacrifice?
www.mexicolore.co.uk
Flagellant - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ok, so you read this, yeah?SELF sacrifice giving of your own blood is something done in many tribes, not just the Aztecs.
“There is no such thing as ‘Human Sacrifice’”
What is meant by Aztec human sacrifice?
Doesn't ring any bells to you?
" Far more likely"
" Think about it"
This is hand waving. This little 5 paragraph article is the bedrock of your opinion here? Where are the MAIN sources for it? It's only the two pictures, and the rest is in the head of the archaeologist. How do you know there is no word for sacrifice in Nahuatl?
So is that how Christians pay their debts for this sins in the eyes of the church? When the church condemned people to death for this sins, is that what they were doing as well?
STOP COMPARING FFS.
In the article you linked there's an article in the comments saying the exact same thing
AZTEC WARRIORS/WESTERN SOLDIERS: The Body Politic Feeds Upon Human Bodies
www.libraryofsocialscience.com
You are literally taking the word of ONE PERSON and have full faith in it.
The MAIN source of my opinion is our clans historian, the same historian who went to Mexico city recently and met with Mayan and Aztec Historians. Go ahead and show me the word Sacrifice in Nahuatl if you think there is one.. Oh yea, there isn't. " Offering" means a great deal of things. If this was how they viewed it, why do they not even have a word for it?
So to catch up, the thread has gone from talking about the tax cut to how the Hopi history tellers have infallible perfect memories?
Where do you think she received her information from? I have always had full faith in our historians because I have never had a reason not to. They have never been wrong on anything else why would they suddenly be wrong on this?
I am comparing because you claimed the" Old world abolished this" but then they really didn't. They just called it something else. Punishing people for their sins, their crimes by executing them is no different than the Aztecs did here. The catholic church liked to make quite a show of it as well. I see the Aztecs much like the Catholic church in that regard. They both like to " peacock" and put on a show.
Last edited:
Received her information from? It's a backwards attempt to try and interpret historical evidence and archaeological evidence.
Rubbish. Ignores Diaz and the testimony of the Aztrecs themselves, the Tlaxcalans and the other members of the triple alliance. Ignores the skull racks and the sensations of the conquistadores when they entered the temple precinct of Tenochtitlan. It ignores the cynical and effectively fake war of the flowers that was designed solely to enable the capture of warriors for sacrifice and prevented Tlaxcala from developing into it’s own state. The Aztecs displayed skulls in their temples, worshipped as two of their principle gods the gods of war and death, and their own historical fables centre around how tough they were and that they succeeded because they were more cruel than all the cruel tribes which surrounded them - a fact that the Aztecs themselves were intensely proud of. It is only modern day Euro-centric historical revisionism that has started to paint the Aztecs as some sort of hippie commune that only went to war when all else failed. They were a warrior race in a stone age culture surrounded by tribes that wanted to kill them - if they had truly been a ‘Switzerland of the Americas’ as this article suggests and only went to war and made sacrifices after much tear-jerking and soul-searching there would be no Aztec culture...and no Mexico...
Mexicolore replies: Thanks for writing in, Martin. We can understand your gut reaction, but please note: Dr. Graham is NOT saying the killings didn’t take place, she’s discussing how we should refer to the killings...
Second comment.
Brings me here
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249494347_The_Offerings_of_the_Templo_Mayor_of_Tenochtitlan
... Three infants were buried in a stone cist found under the Cathedral, with pottery vessels and comales, bird bones, blue pigment, and a greenstone bead (Román Berrelleza 1999 ); an eight-year-old boy was buried in a stone cist associated with the Coyolxauhqui monolith, and the cist burial of a healthy five-year-old child sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, with osteotaphonomical evidences such as cut marks and perimortem fractures of the ribs indicating heart extraction, has been recently excavated and described in full detail (). The most outstanding archaeological case of Aztec child sacrifice is the Templo Mayor Offering 48, where 42 children between two and seven years old (most of them between four and six) were buried in a stone cist as part of a stratified deposit also containing 11 Tlaloc stone jars, two turquoise mosaic discs, greenstone beads (in some cases forming necklaces and bracelets), blue pigment, shells, bird bones, gourd fragments, pinewood, and copal (López Luján 1993; Román Berrelleza 1990 ; Román Berrelleza and Chávez Balderas 2006). Many of the children presented porotic hyperostosis and cavities, while the absence of cut marks on the bones suggests that the children were killed by throat slitting (Román Berrelleza and Rodríguez 1997; Román Berrelleza and Chávez Balderas 2006; López Austin and López Luján 2008, p. 140). ...
Children didn't fight in wars, did they?
You are trying REALLY hard to close your eyes, aren't you?
Immigration during the imperialist era is no longer relevant since all those people are long dead. What is relevant is post-WW2 immigration and in Europe these immigrants were treated with anything but cultural superiority by the host country. They could exercise their religion, build mosques, continue their cultural practices and well into the '90s cultural 'diversity' was actually encouraged by many western European governments. Infact you can argue this permissve attitude is what led to the segregation and failed integration of many of the ascendants of those original immigrants. It is no surprise either that immigrants that can adapt to the mores of the host country, like Asians and Indians, have no problem integrating into the houst country. It are only those with diametrically opposed values, indeed like muslims that have problems.
Eastern Europe is familair with living under occupation and having their culture and homogeny violated so you bet they absolutely dread what is happening in Europe and the destabilizing effect mass immigration has on those societies. A politician can't 'leverage for votes' unless it's a broadly shared sentiment in the first place. One of the main reasons, probably the only reason, for Brexit is that the U.K. wanted autonomy over it's own borders and not the E.U. with it's pro-immigration policies. You can argue cost benefit of the U.K.'s nett contribution and that it's an econmically unsound decision but it is really this apprehension of 'the other' that made those sacrifices worthwhile in the first place. That is how deep the sentiment runs. If it were were really econimically and frustrated people to blame do you think they would have any of the same apprehension if the E.U. was merely an ecomic union like it was during the E.C. era and not a political one? Or if it's merely the incidental worker or student entering the U.K.? Ofcourse not. Only immigration was the issue. And it's not xenophobia if countries don't want to import mass poverty, crime, terrorism and religious segregation. Don't the prisons and benefit system serve more than enough immigrants already?
You are being painfully naive here. Yes, muslims adapt insofar they don't have the numbers to implement their medieval beliefs on the wider population. But name one country in the whole world with a muslim majority that isn't a human rights violating hellhole? Even in Europe they isolate themselves with their own schools teaching islamic values that diametrically oppose western values like separation of church and state, equality between the genders and encouraging political islam that contradicts civil liberties and individual freedoms. Oh yeah, in those schools they teach youngsters to be very acceptant of gays and transgenders as well. They really prioritize women's rights too and all those other things politically correct Lefties find so important they feel so free to shout about in countries where they know they won't be harmed but wouldn't dare to say against muslims let alone a muslim society.
You have mosques funded by Saudi Arabia with extremist preachers from the middle east that give young men an even more inflated superiority complex and separates them even further from the society that provides them with luxurious welfare and benefits. Yeah, real 'open minded' and you should probably feel bad for them having to adjust to such 'racial and cultural superiority'. The only thing governments have kept a lid on is people being pissed. And rightfully so. You conflating the issue that there is a 'deep similarity between islam's intolerant authoritarians and the West's own' is just a dishonest attempt to discredit the rightful criticism that islamic values diametrically oppose those of the Enlightenment. You hereby conveniently forget that populism is merely a reaction on the politically correct attitudes that led to the immigration disaster in the first place. And one that, indeed, also led to Brexit.
Of course not. But you also have to realize that we are speculating about what happened there and how widespread that was. I would actually like to look at the report on the dating of that find. I certainly wouldn't want to take something like the Jonestown massacre and have it representative of an entire culture. Not all Christians or their religion or beliefs are bad because a few did something atrocious. If I judged all Christians by the acts of the conquistadors as representative of what they believe, that would be pretty disturbing as well. Hell I don't even hold Christians responsible for what the catholic church did, nor do I think that is representative of them. That is what I see being done here though. So many more children were killed by Christians in the name of their god but that was not representative of them either.
Oh and them being " more cruel than all the tribes that surrounded them" Actually, I think they killed the cruelest tribe and that was what started the war. The war was ugly, from what we were taught. The Aztecs did atrocious things during that war and so did the allied nations who tried to kill them. It was all horrific from the account that we were told. When I said " shit hit the fan" That was referring to that war. I don't think anyone is pretending war is pretty. But the first comment is also disregarding that most of the war captives were not actually sacrificed when they stated " they took captives to sacrifice".
ALSO the comment stating " the Switzerland of tribes" hell no, they were not anything such nor did the article suggest they were. That was just the commenter exaggerating.
Last edited:
That was one example out of MANY.
I don't judge here. I was interested by what you said, and I thought I didn't understand history and that the Aztecs didn't pursue human sacrifices. Then I went to look at it and... there was nothing there.
They believed that blood had to be shed to make the sun move. Besides the ritualistic blood-letting of priests, the sacrifice and offerings of hearts was an important aspect of it. It was a bloody religion.
You can compare and contrast with Europeans all you want, but this, what I said till now, is true, and is based on evidence found in dig-sites and historical sources.
Your *SINGLE* article doesn't link to any source. I linked mine to studies and archaeological excavations. Your article has an INTERPRETATION of events, not backed up be science or evidence, but by the writer's logic of what the Aztecs must have thought.
" Pursue human sacrifices" in what context? As execution punishments? Even kill children to punish an enemy? I am sure they did both. But just randomly sacrificing people wasn't a thing in any tribe that I am aware of. That is what it is made out to be by the Christians. It is made out to somehow be more barbaric and cruel than "the old world" and from everything we have seen, that is just not true. The "old world" as you suggest was far more cruel and barbaric on an unimaginable scale much worse than anything the Aztecs ever actually did when looking at what was done, and the numbers, but that did not mean that was representative of their overall societies as well. Yet, when we hear Aztecs, it immediately ALWAYS goes to this. Is that only what you think of when you think of Christians? Norse? Hell even the Celts?
Why is it that is what is associated with the Aztecs when it was on a much smaller scale, but when people talk about the Celts, they talk about their other contributions and society?
I am saying that it is taken out of context and that " this was not the norm". The way it is portrayed is not an accurate depiction. Tribes that traded with them, such as ours, were not worried about them trying to sacrifice us, LOL
The problem I see is that it is common to view the Christians, Norse and Celts as people such as themselves, but then they view Tribes such as the Aztec as somehow different and not treated in the same manner.
Last edited:
The way it was portrayed is not accurate because we have very little in terms of documentation. There's also a tendency to fetishize it (see "Apocalypto"). Yet it is true that human sacrifice was a part of their religion and worship.
I am certain you are not aware of central american and south american tribes. There is further documentation (this time, very solid) of human sacrifice in the Inca culture. I also linked to it in the beginning of our conversation.
I am not speaking of cruelty. I am speaking of human sacrifice, which was barbaric to the people of the old world since they had abandoned that for over a millennia and view it as barbaric.
I am not familiar with Celts having human sacrifice. When you think of Moloch Baal, sacrifice of children is the first thing that pops into your mind. It is documented in the bible and in outside sources. It was a part of their religion. Romans sacrificed vestal virgins. Again, I gave you a list.
Aztec are only viewed like this because the information we have on them is quite limited (their culture was demolished, their cities built upon, etc.) and what we have from them is the legacy of their social structure (the city states), their way of life (which was preserved in writing), their war of war (against each other and against the Spanish, since the Spanish employed many tribes to fight for them against other tribes) and lastly their religion.
They believed that you need to shed blood to keep the sun moving. Their creation myth was apocalyptic and terrifying. They had a literal ticking clock until the end of the world. That's some scary shit.
I personally do not recall much of what the historian taught us about the Incas, other than what they traded. I am sure they know plenty about them, but I haven't asked. I left the reservation and only have minimal contact with family there now. So I only have what I was taught before I left or what they have brought up in my few visits. The Aztec were brought up more often because they were actually visiting the Hopi Reservation while I was there and participating in sacred dances. I can assure you the modern Aztec do not believe you need to shed blood to keep the sun moving, and am not so sure how widely spread that belief was even back in it's day.
Just google Celts and human sacrifice, you will find all you need to know. It was apparently common.
I will check about the celts. I used to listen to a podcast about mythologies around the world, which is why I know many of these examples.
Capacocha - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
We don't really know how many people the Aztecs really sacrificed. Even modern historians disagree with each other about that a lot. But the majority of estimates are hundreads, thousands or even tens of thousands per year. Modern estimates, not just stuff the Spanish wrote about hundreads of years ago. That is also not just "executing criminals".
And yes, a lot of other cultures had human sacrifice as well. But i don't know any other region where it ever happened to that extend.
And yes, a lot of other cultures had human sacrifice as well. But i don't know any other region where it ever happened to that extend.
No, if you actually read what started this conversation, it was the guy claiming it was in your human nature to want to kill everyone that was different and that European history proved it to be true. That we are fighting against Human nature to live together in peace. Nice of you to jump to conclusions though. It has nothing to do with Christians specifically. People claiming that Aztecs were somehow worse and barbaric and that was why it was outlawed in the "old world" was where the comparing the sheer level of depravity entered the conversation.