What good was the Inca or Aztec religions?

John J. Bannan said:
Blaming Islam for the downfall of Egypt is fiction. The Greeks and Romans destroyed Egypt.
Click to expand...
We have been through this before. The civilization of Egypt was obliterated by the armies of Caliph Omar of Baghdad because the Egyptians were "infidels." Their libraries were burned because their contents were "heretical." After destroying their culture, the Arabs marginalized the Egyptian people, occupied their land, filled it with immigrants, superimposed their own culture, and took their name, similar to what the Anglo-Saxons did to the original Celtic "Britons." The Greeks and Romans weakened Egypt politically and militarily, but they did not destroy their culture as the Muslims did.
Also, blaming Christianity for the fall of the Incas and Aztecs is simply ignoring the role of the Spanish King in the destruction of those civilizations brought about mainly to fuel the Spanish Empire with gold. Where do you get your unsupported assertions anyway?
Click to expand...
I have also responded to this apologist argument in another thread. The Spanish king may have been greedy for gold and power, but it was the pope who "blessed" him with the deed to all of Latin America west of Brazil, which he deeded to the king of Portugal. If the people living in those regions had been Christians instead of "heathens," they would have been considered nations instead of territories up for grabs. If the Europeans had encountered Christian culture instead of other religions they would have gone to war but not methodically stamped out their history and literature; they would have stolen their treasures but kept them as precious art objects instead of melting them down.

The treatment of the Aztecs and Incas was part of Catholic Europe's effort to rid the world of competing religions, a manifestation of the spirit of the Inquisition, and integral to the dominant but threatened Christian culture of the day.
 
Last edited:
madanthonywayne said:
Being bad at killing is no virtue. If you could go back in time and hand the Aztecs automatic weapons to defend themselves with, do you think they'd turn them down? Of course not.

They were bloody handed savages. The Conquistadors were also savages by modern standards, but were better at it.
Click to expand...
Haaa, and what if we had handed the medieval Europeans modern weapons, would they not have stopped until every culture was crushed under the weight of such an onslaught?
 
madanthonywayne said:
If you could go back in time and hand the Aztecs automatic weapons to defend themselves with, do you think they'd turn them down? Of course not.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Aztecs' own religion was a major ingredient in their downfall. The landing of Córtez appeared to fulfill their prophesy of the return of a god. Some historians say that to a people who were culturally desensitized to ritual murder, his depradations no doubt were interpreted as the right of an angry deity.
joepistole said:
Well with the religion of the Aztecs and Incas, you did not have over population.
Click to expand...
I don't know much about the Incas but the continuum of Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization was in fact a textbook example of stress on the ecosystem. The Mayans clear-cut forests in an ever-widening radius for building materials for their cities, until they destroyed the ability of the land to support them. Under the successor regime of the Aztecs the boundary of the Sonora Desert crept southward due to unsustainable agriculture. (Just as the Gobi Desert is inching its way toward Beijing at a measurable velocity.)

"Overpopulation" is a relative term, but the civilization of Mexico and Guatemala had clearly achieved a population level that its unscientific agricultural technology could not sustain. It's been argued that this is the real reason that the United States was able to overachieve in contrast to its southern neighbors. Civilization had never quite crossed the Rio Grande so it was still the Mesolithic or even the Neolithic Era up here. Timber, topsoil, game, fuel, minerals, clean water--everything that Europe had depleted itself of long ago was found in incredible abundance because no cities had yet been built to exploit it.

We think it was the cultural superiority of the original colonists that made America great. In fact it is quite likely that it was simply their good luck to be the first city-builders to set foot in the region. Good luck that is rapidly running out.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
We think it was the cultural superiority of the original colonists that made America great. In fact it is quite likely that it was simply their good luck to be the first city-builders to set foot in the region. Good luck that is rapidly running out.
Click to expand...

That they were disease carriers and were also welcomed, supported, trained and taught by natives also help foothold incursions maintain themselves. Metal based weapon systems and total conversion or destroy intercultural strategies (similar to the larger empires already in placed in the New World) also aided them in relation to smaller New World societies not accustomed to thinking in terms of wiping out competitors or culturel based warfare - conversion to christianity, banning of language, dress etc. They were sadly outclassed in terms of cynical views of other cultures. (None of this is news to you, I am sure, but I wanted to add to your post)
 
I would not say the Eurpoeans were culturally superior. That is I think debatable. However, there is no doubt the Europeans were technologically superior to the native peoples. Does that justify what the Europeans did to the native peoples, I think not. But hopefully, we as a unified people can learn from our history and do better when we have the opportunity.
Also the advanced technology of the Europeans did not and does not make them any smarter than any other race or people. Time, environment, culture, and circumstance allowed Europeans to obtan advanced technology.
 
Grantywanty said:
...disease carriers...metal based weapon systems
Click to expand...
These were also part of the baggage of being a civilized people (which merely means "the building of cities" and not necessarily "good and noble" as it is commonly but incorrectly used) rather than a Neolithic people (living in villages and having invented the technology of farming, which go together) or a Mesolithic people (small groups of nomadic hunter gatherers who have known each other intimately since birth). Epidemics come with the population density and poor sanitation of city life. The Plague was transmitted by fleas, which were carried by rats, which congregate in cities, with their bountiful supply of groceries and garbage. And metallurgy is too complex a technology to be invented by villagers. Bronze is made of tin and copper, which rarely occur in proximity, and require a sophisticated level of culture, in which two cities that are not close neighbors cooperate for the common good. You can't even describe these things without a lot of commas, a hallmark of civilization. :)

Ironically, when the city folks pushed the limits of metallurgy and discovered how to work iron, it backfired on them. Iron ore is fairly common and once the nice city folk teach you how to find it, it's all you need to make iron tools and weapons. That and a really hot fire, another technology which the city folk graciously share with their backwoods neighbors. (In their defense, it's very difficult to protect an asset that consists only of knowledge, as we are rediscovering in the Computer Age.) Suddenly every barbarian tribe for hundreds of miles around became a "kingdom" and armed itself with metal weapons.

If the ancient Greeks or Romans had discovered the New World, or even Córtez's Chinese contemporaries who had not invented explosive weapons, the rich lodes of untapped iron ore would have been discovered by the natives instead of the occupying forces, and the last five hundred years of history might have been entirely different. Recall that the Germanic "barbarian" tribes like the Vandals and Lombards beat the Romans on their own turf using their own technology!

The transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age is not generally identified by historians as a "Paradigm Shift" like agriculture, city building, industry and computers, but I think it comes pretty close. It changed the nature of civilization from a network of cities with established cultures who had a vested interest in harmony, to a collection of smaller communities only a generation or two out of the Stone Age who could be seduced by the selfish advantage of overrunning each other.
 
draqon said:
Asians had their culture long before Europeans.
Click to expand...
Indeed. AFAIK the Greeks established the first outpost of civilization in Europe, in the late second millennium BCE. The Greeks themselves have questionable credentials to qualify as a "European" people since they were an Indo-European tribe that migrated from western Asia and only arrived around 2000BCE. "Greek civilization" itself is but an offshoot of the far more ancient Mesopotamian civilization, which had spread to Phoenicia and other regions from which the Greeks could simply borrow and build upon it.

"Western civilization" is just part of the continuum of widly successful Mesopotamian civilization. All three of the world's surviving civilizations (Chinese, Indian and Mesopotamian) arose in Asia, long before the first Greek tribesman set foot in Europe. The three that did not survive because they were obliterated by the sons of Mesopotamia arose in Africa (Egyptian), South America (Inca) and North America (Aztec). No civilization was ever developed independently and spontaneously in Europe.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
These were also part of the baggage of being a civilized people (which merely means "the building of cities" and not necessarily "good and noble" as it is commonly but incorrectly used) rather than a Neolithic people (living in villages and having invented the technology of farming, which go together) or a Mesolithic people (small groups of nomadic hunter gatherers who have known each other intimately since birth).
Click to expand...

I've often thought it was sadly ironic that the Native Americans had such strong 'family values' despite the way Christians now and after first contact tended to view them. Strong family ties, charitable relations to neighbors, close relations with children through extended families...their way of life in moral terms probably was more similar to early christian communities than 'modern' Christian ones. Even in their dealings with whites there was a greater tendency to turn the other cheek and see if the whites improved their behavior than the 'superior' monotheists had a tendency in relation to them. (with exceptions of course).

We also got some of our democratic ideas from eastern tribe formats and for damn sure the natives were not secular people. Nevertheless the monotheists have never looked back. Manifest destiny while 'obvious' to everyone has later seemed less obvious to secular Americans.
 
Their architecture was more precise than we could ever dream of although not on the same scale of the Egyptians..both combined astrology with architecture.

We couldn't hope to reproduce such technical expertise and its extremely unlikely that we shall do so in the future. One may as well ask Tracey Emin to paint like Leonardo Da Vinci.. the skills, patience, schooling and most importantly the sense of the Spiritual are now sadly lacking.

Still theres always Rap music and Paris Hilton to divert us. Thank you, America.
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
Their architecture was more precise than we could ever dream of although not on the same scale of the Egyptians..both combined astrology with architecture.

We couldn't hope to reproduce such technical expertise and its extremely unlikely that we shall do so in the future. One may as well ask Tracey Emin to paint like Leonardo Da Vinci.. the skills, patience, schooling and most importantly the sense of the Spiritual are now sadly lacking.

Still theres always Rap music and Paris Hilton to divert us. Thank you, America.
Click to expand...

Don´t forget Mac Donalds
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
Still theres always Rap music and Paris Hilton to divert us. Thank you, America.
Click to expand...

You might want to try avoiding the culture-based feelings of superiority Europeans had in relation to native cultures by not making similar assumptions about rap music. One specific not very talented, very rich person and rap music, which has a huge variety of musical variations and artistic abilities under its category, seem an odd pair in that sentence. For a moment consider that you may have been trained (note that, trained) in how to listen to other forms of music with other aesthetic priorities. If it was rock, you are talking about specific, generally repetitive rhythms, with the focus of variation and play on melody against harmonic structures. With rap and hip hop you are dealing with an emphasis on rhythmic variation and repeating melodic riffs. If only the Europeans had said: these people are different, I wonder what we can learn from them, and spent time acculturating themselves to native aesthetics, spiritual practices, societal organization, leadership styles, healing techniques and, as you said, architecture. If only those who encounter music essentially or literally from other cultures allowed themselves to be trained to get it, rather than assuming that one can lump the whole thing together negatively and assume that the people who are listening have poor aesthetics or are dupes of some kind. Hell, with the help of one music teacher I even came to enjoy one Opera. I don't listen to more on my own. But I could after a while come to understand its (peculiar to me) aesthetics and pleasures.

I keep living in hope that curiosity will overcome knee-jerk belittling of different aesthetics.
 
mountainhare said:
I don't think many people deny that religion in the West has a bloodythirsty history, one as violent as anything practised by the Incas and Aztecs.

What I do object to is how some people portray the West - Americas relationship. As if big bad whitey stomped in and abused the poor innocent Incas and Aztecs. When one realizes that these people subjugated and slaughtered rivalling civilizations and nomads (why do you think so many of the natives allied themselves with the Spanish?), and used them as human sacrifices, it becomes clear that what goes around, comes around.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...those nasty Red Indians fighting one another and causing mayhem.

If I'm wrong..Sioux me! :rolleyes:
 
Billy,
Mountainhare was talking about the Aztecs and Incas in Central America, not North American natives.

What about the Mayans and Toltecs?
 
mountainhare said:
What I do object to is how some people portray the West - Americas relationship. As if big bad whitey stomped in and abused the poor innocent Incas and Aztecs. When one realizes that these people subjugated and slaughtered rivalling civilizations and nomads (why do you think so many of the natives allied themselves with the Spanish?), and used them as human sacrifices, it becomes clear that what goes around, comes around.
Click to expand...

Yes, some tribal people aligned themselves with the Europeans. And those who survived I am quite sure found the new boss the same or worse as the old boss.

When do you think what goes around, comes around will start to take effect in relation to the horrible abuses and genocidal activites of Europeans in relations to native tribes IN GENERAL?
 
The Maya and Toltec civilization faced a crisis not unlike that which we face today. It will be interesting to see how we maneuver through this situation or if we follow in their foot steps. The Maya faced a situation in which the noble class out grew and mismanaged and overstretched their resources in pursuits of personal pleasure and power. When faced with a natural disaster – a drought, they crumbled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top