Do the "crimes" of the natives against each other justify the "crimes" of the colonizators against them?

You know, the same can be applied to the ongoing Muslim takeover of Europe. Europeans spent millenia killing people all over the world, but mostly each other. Does it justify their displacement?

>Sanitation

And you were doing good too

Nah. Trying to justify shit that happened 600 years ago is retarded. It doesn't need to be justified. The strong overtake the weak. The only reason you point out the natives' practices of slavery, cannibalism, war etc. is to dispel the noble savage myth.

500

Morality is a tricky thing.

But it's important to remember that the Europeans weren't invading the Natives because they were primitive savages, they we're invading because the native's land was valuable.

It's the same with Iraq Wars. Saddam might have been ruthless despot, but that's not why the U.S. took him out.

Yes

>/pol/ using animu in their propaganda now

The problem is that most of people try to decide who is the most evil.

>stirner stepping on libertarian capitalism

Its the lost culture, historical documents, destroyed cities and temples, and other things that bothers be about the Spanish conquest.

Literally destroying history, and as a history fan that bothers me.

ISIL tier faggots that the Spanish were.

>blaming around 1200~ conquistadors for the actions of hundreds of thousands of Tlaxcalans and other native people tired of the Aztecs/Mayans warcrimes against them
Paco should have just treated his garderners from Cholula better and they wouldn't ride the spanish cock.
Mayans and Aztecs are to blame for everything.

>Mayans warcrimes against them
How do people still not understand the difference between the fucking Mayans and Aztecs?

Yes.
The conquistadors were liberators of the New World, and all mestizos alive today are descended from the collaborators who had a vastly superior position in life under Spanish rule.

>Blattaria

Get back to me when Europe is practicing state mandated ritual human sacrifice.

cause they are all brown

what, you think they had like different cultures, languages and historical timelines anyone gives a fuck about when Rome and shit exists in history?

>waaaah the Spanish didn't preserve the Aztec manuals for ritual dismemberment and copies of "To Serve Man (for dinner)"
Truly ISIS-tier.....

Honestly, if the Spanish had any culture themselves, like the French, it wouldn't be as bad. But thats just the aztecs.

Now, the destruction of the Inca is the real tragedy. its like we lost a China so that Romania could have an empire.

I'll give you the Incas, it's hard to defend Pizarro.
Cortes at least had balls, Pizarro was just a dick.

Incas were gonna be destroyed by civil war anyway. One day the world will know the Spanish preserved Amerindian culture by diffusing it with their own as opposed to the anglos who wiped them out.

>Aztec culture was literally nothing but killing people
Sacrifice yourself.

They literally believed the moon was a dismembered corpse user, people who have things on their mind other than murder don't look at the moon and see a woman who has been hacked into pieces. If that's not a cultural Rorscharh test I don't know what is.

You are absolutely wrong about it. People like you are confused. The Spanish Inquisition were softly in comparission with the violence of others europeans like germans o frenchs.
The problem is that the spanish inquisition has been a very bad propaganda in history.

Aztecs killed at least 20,000 people every year with their human sacrificies, even babies to Tlaloc god.

Nope.

The (Spanish) Inquisition was only one thing. Late medieval Europe had a high murder rate, and nobles could more or less mete out capital punishment at will. And the Spaniards did. Srsly, you would have found late medieval Spain (and most corners of Europe) a pretty bloody place. All in the name of keeping God's order in balance. It's really not a whole lot different. The Aztec religion was batshit, don't get me wrong, but they didn't kill more or for 'worse' reasons than Europe was doing at the same time.

Welcome to Earth, nigga.

>Aztecs killed at least 20,000 people every year with their human sacrificies
[Citation needed]

In fact history works in this way. Chinese, Romans, Aztecs, Inkas destroyed a lot of cultures, cities and languages and nobody matters.

Ironically mostly of latinamerican people who feels bother about it are descendants of spanish conquers that hates.

>now

>user genuinely doesn't see the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating secular punishments aginst crime with ritual human sacrifce

About the number of people were killed by inquistions you sould take a look to "Modern History" by Bennassar, Jacquart, Lebrun, Denis, Blayau.

Spanish Inquisition killed less (a lot of) people that "inquisition" in Germany in the XVI and XVII centuries because it was an instrument used by spanish cronw for avoided some kingdoms´s laws. Truly it ussed the excuse of the defense of religion.

About the number of the Aztecs killed I can´t citate this by now (I´ll try) but I worked about it and I´m not wrong. Azteca´s gods needed a lot of human blood.

this

blessed is the historian who can put himself in the ancient man's shoes

Saying how many people the Aztecs sacrificed is like saying how many people died in the gladiator games, we really don't know.

For all we know, the Aztecs sacrificed a lot less than both the Spaniards claimed and the Aztecs boasted about. Both had reasons to exaggerate the numbers.

>Catholic Church is indoctrination
>but "muh liberal secular materialism" I've been fed from birth isn't
Kys

They're both slavedrivers like anyone else that's trying shape you into an ant for the colony.

Civilization demands indoctrination. Also, you have to define freedom before you imply civilization destroys it. Is an homo sapiens, acting on instinct and tribal loyalty, any more free than a man beholden to God? We aren't unmoved-movers in any scenario

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

First of all, medieval Europe was not secular. I'm not sure where you get that idea from. Capital punishment was done in the name of the Lord, and the condemned were typically allowed to have confession and forgiveness before the execution. The official justifications for executions hinged on offending the law, which was ultimately the nobility's (whatever level) sacred duty to protect. Killings were obviously also done out of convenience, spite, revenge, competition, etc. but the official line was always for offending God and disturbing the sacred order of things.

The Aztecs probably also killed out of convenience, spite, revenge, competition, etc. but the official line was to keep the cosmos from imploding by feeding the gods blood, or in other words maintaining the sacred order of things. Conveniently, war captives or pesky neighbours could be used to feed the gods.

>teach them how to read and write

>”These people had no letters nor script, neither knew to write nor read. They communicated with images and paintings and all their history and books were recorded in figures and images and they knew and had memory of their ancestors and what they did and left recorded for more than a thousand years before the Spanish arrived to this land.”

>”Most of these books and recordings were burnt as other idolatries, but many of them are still hidden. After we came to this land to preach our fate we gathered many young men in our homes and taught them to write, read and sing. As they did well we ensured to teach them grammar and a school in Santiago de Tlatelolco was built for this purpose. This school received the most able young men from all the neighboring towns. ”

>”The Spanish and clergymen who knew about this laughed and mocked , being sure that no one could teach grammar to people so unskillful, but working with them for two or three years they came to understand every art and subject of grammar and speak Latin, both written and spoken and even to write heroic verses. ”

>”As the secular and ecclesiastic clergymen saw this they became frightened of how such thing was possible: I was the one who worked with them for the first four years and taught them about Latin and its knowledge. ”
>”As they saw that this project would continue and that they were improving, and they had ability for more, the clerics started to disapprove the school and object about the risks of idolatry this implied. ”
- Florentine Codex by Friar Francisco de Sahagun, Tenth Book, Inform of the author

The College of Tlatelolco was closed 5 years after Sahagun's death.

>modern ideas of sanitation

>”THERE are many animals of different kinds, as tigers, lions, and wolves, and likewise jackals, which are between a fox and a dog, and others between lion and wolf. The tigers are of the same size as the lions, or perhaps a little larger, except that they are more robust and ferocious; they have the whole body full of white spots, and none of these animals harms the Spaniards, but to the people of the country they show no tenderness, but on the contrary eat them.”
- Chronicle of the Anonymous Conquistador, Second Chapter

Protip: It was related to their smell.

>sanitation
Medieval Europe was literally bottom of the barrel in terms of proper sanitation. There were people who predated them by thousands of years with greater feats of sanitation. Hell, one might even argue that people living in fucking mudhuts had better sanitation, if only for the fact that their more simplistic life style naturally created less filth.

>Practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism
Aztecs had a different perspective of the food chain. They were not the kind of people who would treat their dogs better than other animals just for being loyal.

>Aztec manuals for ritual dismemberment and copies of "To Serve Man (for dinner)"
>>>/XVI/

what about the shit they pulled in the Netherlands?

this
bunch of violent savages

>was enslaving their neighbors
Like every other European power? And what they would to the conquered people?
>practice human sacrifice
I'll concede that one
>cannibalism
That's debated
>teach them to read and write
Not only they did not teach them to read or write either Spanish or Latin they destroyed their books
>convert them to Christianity
Subjective
>modern sanitation
They did not, and while it's debated some have argued that aztecs already had sanitation

>while it's debated some have argued that aztecs already had sanitation
It's not debated. First hand accounts of the Spaniards, flat out say that the streets of Tenochtitlan were very clean.

>give them modern ideas of sanitation
Tenochtitlan had sanitation systems, complex irrigation, and a city planning organization, all things that Spanish cities generally lacked, retard.

>Like every other European power?
Europe stopped enslaving Christians when we converted to Christianity. The last ones that did it were the Norsemen in the 10th century. Except of course the Ruskies, but they hardly count.

>Europe stopped enslaving Christians when we converted to Christianity

Who gives a fuck, it's a crime. Both natives and colonials did horrible things to each other, just so happened the colonisers were better at it

That was 300 years after the Conquistadors, retard.

these were not christians, fag

So basically "they are close to matching/being better then us. S-s-s-shut it down!"

>Kingdom of Kongo converts to Christianity in the 1400s
>Portugal doesn't outlaw the trans-atlantic slave trade till 1836
They were Christians user.

Spain fucked up in every sense of the word we are to look at the totality of their results in the end. All of this and they basically came out of it as the loser of West Europe in the end.

Iberians enslaving West Africans started 15th century friendo. Just because it became more prolific everywhere else centuries after the fact doesn't mean that it started centuries after the fact.

They had coastal colonies for trade supply not for enslaving you fucking nigger.

The Spanish and Portuguese literally started transporting African slaves to South America in the early 1500s. This is a historical fact. They, and many other nations, continued to do so regardless of whether the africans were christians or not up until they abolished the practice in the early 19th century.

>ayo carlos, you wanna enslave an entire people just for fun?
this is not how the world works, worked or will ever work.

>for fun
Mind giving the quote of when I said it was for fun? I'd greatly appreciate it. The fact still remains though that the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade started in the 16th century. Are you going to attempt to disprove that?

user you are being inconsistent with your posts.

First you said that they were 300 years after conquistadors but user proved that was false explicitly. Then suddenly you sperg off not acknowledging his point by going off tangent with a non sequitur post saying

>this is not how the world works, worked or will ever work.

Despite him never implying it at all.

They started to correct friars in their lectures when they cite biblical verses inaccurately. So yeah.

>Francisco de Sahagun
*Bernardino
how did I fucked that up

No. Their crimes are their problem, not of the colonizators.

The the Aztecs had it coming to be fair. They were living on borrowed time quite frankly.

But other than that, No.

But he's my two sense.

One of the many reasons we frown appon the Americans exploiting the Natives and taking their land is because it happened to recently. It was so widely recorded that we really can't ignor it. Sure you don't have to teach it in school but America did exactly what other Civilizations have done in the past. They Conquered and took their prize. Greece did it and we idolize them. Rome did it. Egypt did it. China, india, Hebrews, Spanish... multiple times and not just in America but in the reconquista. Who else? Africans did it, Even the Natives that people claim to have not deserved what the US did to them.

So yeah, it's not right by any means, but shit Veeky Forums knows, Nobody is in the right or wrong when it comes down to it.

>he's my two sense

Wow

>Do the "crimes" of the natives against each other justify the "crimes" of the colonizators against them?
No, that reasoning is retarded. That's like saying if Alice and Bob are fighting, it's justified for Charles to show and up and beat up both of them. Which doesn't make sense unless they're putting others at risk.

probably b8, but slaving non-christian people still counts as slavery

Be off Grammar Nazi

Cute young Ellen Baker.

>crimes

Right of conquest you whiny shit.

Why would you consider human sacrifices to be morally reprehensible? Because it goes against the abrahamic religions worldview?

can you be more pacific in letting us know what's wrong with that phrasing?

>spaniards
>sanitation

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I feel like it's not so much that it's recent and rather that some believe it's still ongoing. For example, before the Latin American Wars of Independence at the start of the 19th century, there were repeated native uprisings throughout the Spanish Empire from the end of the 17th century all the way through the 18th, a period generally considered to be beyond the remit of the initial colonial period and the subsequent genocides. Similarly, the American Indian Wars raged across the frontier from the first contact with the Powhatan through the colonial wars up to the Declaration and beyond into United States history, Trail of Tears, Black Hawk War, Little Big Horn, Removal Act etc. Sure, many efforts have been made to ameliorate things (Indian New Deal, for example) but the damage is irreversible and I think, even in the modern post-industrial Americas, it is difficult for the indigenous peoples, and I mean those still tied to their cultures rather than the mestizos in Latin America, to truly become naturalised elements of European American societies. Some nations have been more inclusive than others, for example Bolivia, but it's still not perfect, and it continues all the way up to the modern era. For example, Red Power activists occupied Alcatraz between 1969 and 1971. Then there was the occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. Over the past thirty or so years Canada has found itself in various different land disputes with First Nations groups, including such events as the Oka crisis and the Gustafsen Lake standoff. Most recently, there were protests in the United States by the American Indian Movement and the Standing Rock people over that big Dakota oil pipeline being built through their land.

1/2

2/2

My main point is this is an act of conquest and cultural elimination that is still, to some extent, ongoing, and that is why it is relevant. The victims of Roman conquests, or Egyptian conquests, or ancient Chinese and Indian conquests are no longer under the yoke in any meaningful way. Even the legacy of the Manchu conquest of China, which occurred more recently than some elements of European colonialism, has all but faded as the Manchu become naturalised citizens. But European colonialism still has an effect on those whose ancestors were conquered for better or for worse.

Not at all.

1. Don't apply modern concepts of morality and "justice" to history

2. Ignoring ^ two wrongs don't make a right

3. Like every other instance of shit shit, the vast majority of the Aztecs had nothing to do with the mass slaughter the upper-classes were responsible for

and only against it if you get told not to at the last minute

I gotta go to work, but I'll get back to you on that

>Slaving its neighbors
Oh, so enslaving is morally reprensible only if it's done against your neighbors. Then I guess the feudal enslaving Mesoamericans were forced to was just a extreme christian method to stop people to sin.

>inb4 kings were against the enslaving
When the friars tried to limit the slaving to only one generation the feudal lords started to exploit people 20 hours a day. Obviously not many made it, so the friars had to abolish that law and make the slave condition hereditary again (something which didn't happen in the Aztec Empire since the children of slaves were born free and slaves could also buy their freedom).

They should have started to tax people like the Spanish in Netherlands and Italy instead of forcing inhuman slaving tribute I give you that.

"We only conquered them to civilize them!" is the oldest excuse in the book. Your Roman forebears introduced it to your Paleohispanic ancestors when they raped and colonized them.

>empires need an excuse to conquer anyone
Then every meaningful population in history needs an excuse. Besides being salty losers (which is as good a reason as any) what's with the obsession with weakness?

>Then every meaningful population in history needs an excuse

And what do you know, they always end up bullshitting an excuse.

"muh founding myths!!!!!"

Curiously, even if they knew they were isolated non-christian cannibals, in the Spanish court people debated about what right did they had to subjugate people with civilization.
They didn't come up with an answer but people dying by millions to sickness worked with "God's punishment for their sins".

Ok yeah so this is meIn response to your summary, I'm not to educated on all of those events, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the fact checking. Nonetheless though, even if those events were false, I'd say that your point remains the same. And i would for the most part agree with you. When i said it has happened too recently, most of what you summarized was what I was referring to. These instances where Natives are acting apon their rights and trying to claim land that was conquered has been, is happening, and will continue to happen throughout history.

As for the point you make the the conquest is still ongoing I'd say yes and no. Throuhout history people after being conquered have felt and faught for their claims of land that they once had before they had been conquered.

Some examples have caused and are still causing the biggest disputes. WW1 and WW2 had some serious diplomatic problems that had a lot to do with land and ethnic claims. Israel today is being faught over land claims.

The amount of unsettling actions due to our past history of nations conquering nations will continue as well as we all continue in this world where we can sign treaties instead of fight wars. Where we can protest without being massacred.

I'm being very general on a lot of what I am stating, but what I mean the most is that yes European conquest and colonialism in the Americas are still largely felt. Though is it the only instance where this is happening? No definitely not. Was it or is it right? In today's world no. But my main point is that if this were still the middleages, these kind of disputes would not be handled with such peacefulness nor would anyone really care that much because the fact that being conquered is in itself an end statement that "you lost, now bow down."

Violence needs no justification. It is merely another method of identifying merit. When it is important those who lack apptitude are without merit. When it is without relevance those who have it and cannot assert themsevles with it have less merit than those using the new forms of interaction.

Do any fuckers in here actually know anything about Mesoamerican cultures?

The Aztecs were obsessive in regards to sanitation: Tenochtitlan was noted by the very Spaniards to be kept meticulously clean, with aromatic trees planted along the main way into the city to scent the air with a floral smell, and an army of sweepers and filth-collectors to keep the city's streets clean and remove feces from homes and public privies to take to use as fertilizer in the chinampas.

The Aztecs also placed great emphasis on personal hygene: most homes possessed steam-bath chambers, and it was known that bathing twice a day was a general habit across all of Aztec society. Lastly, the fact that they had no service animals and that individual dwelling places were relatively separated from each other contributed to making the Aztecs much more hygenic than the Europeans by a long mark.

>h-human sacrifice!
>cannibalism

The high figure that gets thrown around of 20,000/year seems unlikely: the number seems inflated on both sides. On the Aztec side, it seems that the number was inflated as a matter of prestige or fear-mongering, whereas the Spaniards had the very obvious motive of trying to depict them as demonically-influenced barbarians.

I also don't see why the Aztec religion - aside from human sacrifice - should be viewed as monstrous, when Christians also believe they engage in ritual cannibalism, convoluted apologetics aside.

>Europe stopped enslaving Christians when we converted to Christianity

This is wrong. The Venetians were noted for their slave trade. When the Church 'banned' owning Christian slaves, the Venetians were known to raid Dalmatia and to take slaves from there (because the people of the region were historically known as the 'Pagani', even though many were already Christians); the Venetians also took a great number of Greek slaves following the establishment of the Latin Empire, and their slave trade would flourish well into the 16th century.

You bring some good points to the table.

I understand you care deeply about the Aztecs but to be fair, they were on their way out.

I mean do you really think some 30000 Spanish killed all 3 million Aztecs. They had help from other rebellions, and local tribes and other civilizations that had been fighting the Aztec for years.

The Inca however is one of those things I can't stand but feel sad for. they were just starting to look good too.

>I mean do you really think some 30000 Spanish killed all 3 million Aztecs. They had help from other rebellions, and local tribes and other civilizations that had been fighting the Aztec for years.

You forgot to mention the most important weapon the Spaniards had, and the one to whom the actual credit for the conquest goes: disease.

I am pretty sure that even with the help of the Tlaxcalans, the Aztecs - with their Triple Alliance and hegemony - would have been victorious. It's only when disease set in and their society began to fall apart that they were unable to mount a resistance. Furthermore, the inordinately high death count among the Aztecs was due to disease.

>Though is it the only instance where this is happening? No definitely not. Was it or is it right? In today's world no. But my main point is that if this were still the middleages, these kind of disputes would not be handled with such peacefulness nor would anyone really care that much because the fact that being conquered is in itself an end statement that "you lost, now bow down."

Yeah, that was something I forgot to touch on. Obviously the only reason that elements of (white) European American society sympathise with the cause of the subjugated Natives is because of modern egalitarian schools of thought. Certainly in pre-Enlightenment Europe and colonial America such an issue was nowhere near considered. But, as the 19th century went on and Native Americans were forced to completely submit to European domination, many groups within the post-colonial society began to support the Natives and seek common cause with them, a similar process as that which occurred with the descendants of African slaves in the Americas.

Essentially, yeah. I feel that the European colonisation of the New World is still a hot topic for many reasons, and the fact that its repercussions are still being heavily felt by remaining Native peoples is just one of them. Another major one is due to the massive cultural effect the discovery and colonisation of the Americas had on European society, completely overturning entire established cognitive orientations of knowledge as a completely new, isolated and different set of people, cultures, histories and societies were discovered across the ocean, a completely new world that threw out the established doctrines of Christendom when it came to earthly knowledge. Perhaps this was one of the things that contributed, along with obvious deep Catholic loyalties, to the conquistadores marching in faith-first - a desire to make this unknown world knowable.

1/2

2/2

Additionally, it is an event that sparks the end of the Middle Ages and the emerges of the Early modern period, happening right in the middle of the Renaissance and contributing toward the development of the Enlightenment.
There is also the fact that it lead to an entire continuum of cultures being wiped out or subsumed, whether it be via intentional genocide, accidental genocide or simply cultural dominance and subjugation. Before the Second World War, it was the greatest death toll the Western world had seen, even if it was mostly the Natives that died (almost 24 and a half million died in the conquest of Mexico, and the mean of estimates is around 34,016,173, while some put it higher than 100,000,000, higher even that WW2). Before this, Europe, and thus the cultural milieu we find ourselves in, had never seen such destruction. All of these contributed to it leaving a fairly hefty mark on our collective memories.

Yet you are right, there is no point attempting to apply more modern morals or, god forbid, politics to these events. Instead, we must simply do our best to place ourselves in the time, to see into the minds of every person who was there, European or Native, so that we might know a little better what drives men to do such things, whether they are good or bad.

*and the mean of estimates for the entire conquest of the Americas is around 34,016,173

>They should have started to tax people like the Spanish in Netherlands and Italy instead of forcing inhuman slaving tribute I give you that.
have a rare 16th century photo of an aztec tax collector whipping his slaves